Jump to content
  • Welcome to AngelsWin.com

    AngelsWin.com - THE Internet Home for Angels fans! Unraveling Angels Baseball ... One Thread at a Time.

    Register today to join the most interactive online Angels community on the net!

    Once you're a member you'll see less advertisements. Become a Premium member and you won't see any ads! 

     

Rays' pitching experiment


Torridd

Recommended Posts

22 minutes ago, Torridd said:

What do you think? The Rays experiment with and adjust their pitching strategy -- beginning the game with high-leverage relievers and deploying innings-eating starters later. They started this against the Angels on Saturday. 

They read this message board and took the idea from the guy who suggested we use Ohtani as a reliever.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, Torridd said:

What do you think? The Rays experiment with and adjust their pitching strategy -- beginning the game with high-leverage relievers and deploying innings-eating starters later. They started this against the Angels on Saturday. 

Hard to say right now -- their performance .vs us aside, the pitching there hasn't been very good.   But if a team can shorten the game at the end by using a mediocre RP to open... it may prove to be a pretty innovative approach.

Personally, I like seeing teams try new things..   it wasn't too long ago that people were saying the 6 man rotation wouldn't work, would throw the other pitchers off, and destined to fail and yet so far so good in Anaheim.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, Torridd said:

What do you think? The Rays experiment with and adjust their pitching strategy -- beginning the game with high-leverage relievers and deploying innings-eating starters later. They started this against the Angels on Saturday. 

I actually like the idea, though I hated seeing it work against our Angels, for the most part.  Romo did his job on both appearances.  Maybe a Noe Ramirez can start 1-2 innings and then allow a SP go 6, and then close it out with Parker or Anderson.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, jordan said:

I actually like the idea, though I hated seeing it work against our Angels, for the most part.  Romo did his job on both appearances.  Maybe a Noe Ramirez can start 1-2 innings and then allow a SP go 6, and then close it out with Parker or Anderson.

Personally, I'd throw the worst guy in the pen out there first...  at least you have the entire game to recover.   Any situation that robs the Angels the use of Noe later in the game and makes it so they have to rely on Cam is a bad one IMO.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I like it. Innovation while it doesn’t always produce wins its changes it up. This is a team that shouldn’t even be in Tampa anymore w the 5 fans that go to the games and a low payroll. Throw a lot of stuff at the walls and see what sticks. It’s definitly interesting to say the least

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Inside Pitch said:

Personally, I'd throw the worst guy in the pen out there first...  at least you have the entire game to recover.   Any situation that robs the Angels the use of Noe later in the game and makes it so they have to rely on Cam is a bad one IMO.

Well that means starting off with Cam in the 1st.  Not sure that's a good idea either.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, jordan said:

Well that means starting off with Cam in the 1st.  Not sure that's a good idea either.

As I said -- at least you have the entire game to recover.     In truth Cam needs to be replaced ASAP..   He's been shitty in every possible situation and last time I looked first batters he faced this year had an OPS over 1.000.

Dude has been unbelievably awful.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Inside Pitch said:

As I said -- at least you have the entire game to recover.     In truth Cam needs to be replaced ASAP..   He's been shitty in every possible situation and last time I looked first batters he faced this year had an OPS over 1.000.

Dude has been unbelievably awful.

And to think he was supposed to be the closer of the future. He's choked in just about every chance given to him. What a doofus.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think I like it...The logic goes: a back end reliever is almost certainly better than a back end starter (especially in the Ray's situation, where they barely have back end starters). You grantee that your reliever faces the top of the opponents order (theoretically their best hitters) in a tied game. Technically this is a fairly high leverage situation.

The other piece of this is kinda weird...In theory, he gets three outs, and your starter comes in. Your starter's first time around the order is against 4-9, 1-3. Same with the second and third. This means that when your starter is at their worst - going their third time through the batting order, instead of starting against the 1-3 guys- he is seeing the 4-6 guys. In other words, the first batter of the order (again, theoretically the cluster of 1-3 is your top three hitters) gets his third look at the "starter" in the 28th at bat of the game (and the 25th at bat against the starter), rather than the 22nd at bat of the game (and the 22th at bat against the starter - obviously). If you have a starter who is more likely to get knocked out by the 1-3 guys seeing him a third time than the 4-9 guys seeing him a third time, you may have bought him an extra ~3 at bats in the game by having your reliever go for one inning in the start. Not a HUGE difference by any means, but like...why leave it on the table? Especially if your reliever isn't one of the top two on the team.

Basically, this makes a lot of sense if your team has solid relief, but has some trouble with their back end starters. It makes less sense as your team drifts from those conditions.

Edit - to be clear, the Angels are about as far as these conditions as you can get. That being said, I'm not sure if that means this tactic would be neutral for us, negative for us, or just less positive for us than it would be for other teams. Assuming its even positive for other teams.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it's an interesting idea. That first inning is actually a pretty high-leverage situation. It's a tie game in the top of the first. I read on ESPN (I think) that the team that scores first win 70-plus percent of the time. Those first hitters are often the team's best. Why not use your best relievers to turn that lineup over once and prevent them from scoring? Then the starters can go deeper into the game, maybe even finish it out, only turning the lineup over twice. Depending on the quality of the BP staff, this could work.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, krAbs said:

I think I like it...The logic goes: a back end reliever is almost certainly better than a back end starter (especially in the Ray's situation, where they barely have back end starters). You grantee that your reliever faces the top of the opponents order (theoretically their best hitters) in a tied game. Technically this is a fairly high leverage situation.

The other piece of this is kinda weird...In theory, he gets three outs, and your starter comes in. Your starter's first time around the order is against 4-9, 1-3. Same with the second and third. This means that when your starter is at their worst - going their third time through the batting order, instead of starting against the 1-3 guys- he is seeing the 4-6 guys. In other words, the first batter of the order (again, theoretically the cluster of 1-3 is your top three hitters) gets his third look at the "starter" in the 28th at bat of the game (and the 25th at bat against the starter), rather than the 22nd at bat of the game (and the 22th at bat against the starter - obviously). If you have a starter who is more likely to get knocked out by the 1-3 guys seeing him a third time than the 4-9 guys seeing him a third time, you may have bought him an extra ~3 at bats in the game by having your reliever go for one inning in the start. Not a HUGE difference by any means, but like...why leave it on the table? Especially if your reliever isn't one of the top two on the team.

Basically, this makes a lot of sense if your team has solid relief, but has some trouble with their back end starters. It makes less sense as your team drifts from those conditions.

Edit - to be clear, the Angels are about as far as these conditions as you can get. That being said, I'm not sure if that means this tactic would be neutral for us, negative for us, or just less positive for us than it would be for other teams. Assuming its even positive for other teams.

only problem is starter's wins might get snipped by the opener.  So depending on the score their motivation may be down.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...