Fix bullpen a priority?

[Dtwncbad]

Many fans think you build your team and then go after a few lockdown bullpen arms as the last pieces.

My question is. . .what if the Angels basically only fixed the bullpen?  What impact woukd that have on wins and losses?

Look at the ratio of saves to blown saves from last year.  Brutal.  Second worst in the league.

Wouldn't fixing the bullpen give them a shot at 90 wins just from that fix alone?

[Hubs]

Ty Buttery fixes that hopefully. And apparently Middleton is likely back sooner than I expected.

[kevinb]

Doubtful they spend much money on bullpen. Doesn’t look like Epplers Style. 

[Docwaukee]

buying a pen is too unpredictable.  you could spend a ton and end up with similar production to that of buttrey, parker, anderson, cole, robles, and alvarez.  

Could we use that one guy whose is a lock down closer?  yes, but the cost of acquisition would be very high.  

[floplag]

i suggested something similar early in the hot stove, bullpen and offense and roll the dice.  
However, at this point, weve lost too many SP for it to be an option, if it ever really was .

[BackUpTheTruck]

A lockdown bullpen helps the offense.

Not only does the offense need to score less runs, each player feels less pressure to swing for the fences.

Baseball is unique in that defense controls the ball. Therefore, investing in defense (pitching) is more important than offense, which is not to say having a balanced lineup isn't important as well.

I'm inclined to believe that a deep and talented bullpen is a must for a championship baseball team.

[UndertheHalo]

Come on guys.  It’s not as simple looking at the number of blown saves and then pretending the team gets those games back as wins.  

The Angels shitty offense put tons of pressure on the bull pen.  

The Angels starting pitchers constantly going like 4 innings puts tons of pressure on the bullpen.  

You’re kidding yourself if you think the Angels are a couple of reliable relievers away from being a 90 win team.  If you score 2 or 3 runs the entire game and then expect your bullpen to protect a 1 run lead for 4 innings, constantly.  You’re begging to lose.  And the Angels did. 

Edited November 30, 2018 by UndertheHalo

[Docwaukee]

14 minutes ago, BackUpTheTruck said:

A lockdown bullpen helps the offense.

Not only does the offense need to score less runs, each player feels less pressure to swing for the fences.

Baseball is unique in that defense controls the ball. Therefore, investing in defense (pitching) is more important than offense, which is not to say having a balanced lineup isn't important as well.

I'm inclined to believe that a deep and talented bullpen is a must for a championship baseball team.

the importance of controlling the ball in other sports has to do with the fact that there's a clock.  

a better offense helps the pitching in that they need to give up less runs.  there is less pressure to strike everyone out.  

Agree that lineup balance is important but I don't see pitching as being any more important than how you hit.  A balanced rotation is important as is a strong pen.  

Deep talented bullpens are a huge asset in the playoffs whereas you can get away without one during the regular season.  

Being very strong in one particular area can cover some warts though.  

I've been a big fan of having a lock down pen since the MS era began because I felt he was inclined to lesser pitchers in situations that he maybe shouldn't have in that he typically stuck to assigned roles.  But he evolved (or adjusted) the last few years.  

The biggest problem with last years pen is that it wasn't deep enough to overcome a pitching staff that just wasn't out there enough primarily because they sucked.  Especially on the back end.  So we saw guys like Jim Johnson, Noe Ramirez, and Cam Bedrosian for a combined 208.1 ip.  Plus another 80 or so innings from a bunch of scrubs.  If your starters throw another 100 ip then you don't have that problem.  Plus you have the right guys in more meaningful situations.   

[UndertheHalo]

if you score 5 or 6 runs a game or more frequently.  You’re going to win games. End of story. 

Edited November 30, 2018 by UndertheHalo

[Pancake Bear]

Only team with more reliever innings and less inning pitched by starting pitching than the Angels: Tampa. 

And, if I’m not mistaken, they were deliberately running a four man rotation. In other words, no team had a worse starting rotation than the Angels or relied on the bullpen more in a traditional setup. 

[UndertheHalo]

2 minutes ago, Sean-Regan said:

Only team with more reliever innings and less inning pitched by starting pitching than the Angels: Tampa. 

And, if I’m not mistaken, they were deliberately running a four man rotation. In other words, no team had a worse starting rotation than the Angels or relied on the bullpen more in a traditional setup. 

The rays deliberately were bullpening games.  It was pretty effective actually.  I think at a couple of points during the season they literally had like 1 SP. 

i actually think we’re going to start seeing more and more of blur between the traditional SP and relievers.  It makes sense, and demonstrably teams are showing it works. 

Edited November 30, 2018 by UndertheHalo

[Tank]

i'm absolutely in favor of adding a lockdown closer, someone like familia. for my money, that would be a good move.

[BackUpTheTruck]

15 minutes ago, Dochalo said:

the importance of controlling the ball in other sports has to do with the fact that there's a clock.  

a better offense helps the pitching in that they need to give up less runs.  there is less pressure to strike everyone out.  

Agree that lineup balance is important but I don't see pitching as being any more important than how you hit.  A balanced rotation is important as is a strong pen.  

Deep talented bullpens are a huge asset in the playoffs whereas you can get away without one during the regular season.  

Being very strong in one particular area can cover some warts though.  

I've been a big fan of having a lock down pen since the MS era began because I felt he was inclined to lesser pitchers in situations that he maybe shouldn't have in that he typically stuck to assigned roles.  But he evolved (or adjusted) the last few years.  

The biggest problem with last years pen is that it wasn't deep enough to overcome a pitching staff that just wasn't out there enough primarily because they sucked.  Especially on the back end.  So we saw guys like Jim Johnson, Noe Ramirez, and Cam Bedrosian for a combined 208.1 ip.  Plus another 80 or so innings from a bunch of scrubs.  If your starters throw another 100 ip then you don't have that problem.  Plus you have the right guys in more meaningful situations.   

In football, the best defense is a great offense.

The Chargers often upset me when they elect to run the ball three times to burn the opponent's timeouts, punt the ball, and play prevent defense on the last drive of the game.

That being said, Junior Seau was a student of the game, and had the mindset of being on offense even though he was on defense.

As a hitter, you are always reacting.  As a pitcher, you control the guessing game. There is a reason batting averages are consistently below .300.

If you hold your opponent to zero runs, all you need to win is one lucky swing, a walk + a double, a single + a stolen base + another single, etc.

I also place a high priority on quality starting pitching, but not as much as the bullpen. At least a lockdown bullpen gives the offense a chance to come back and win late. A weak bullpen that loses games that should be won, demoralizes a team.

BTW, Roll Tide!

[Docwaukee]

19 minutes ago, BackUpTheTruck said:

In football, the best defense is a great offense.

The Chargers often upset me when they elect to run the ball three times to burn the opponent's timeouts, punt the ball, and play prevent defense on the last drive of the game.

That being said, Junior Seau was a student of the game, and had the mindset of being on offense even though he was on defense.

As a hitter, you are always reacting.  As a pitcher, you control the guessing game. There is a reason batting averages are consistently below .300.

If you hold your opponent to zero runs, all you need to win is one lucky swing, a walk + a double, a single + a stolen base + another single, etc.

I also place a high priority on quality starting pitching, but not as much as the bullpen. At least a lockdown bullpen gives the offense a chance to come back and win late. A weak bullpen that loses games that should be won, demoralizes a team.

BTW, Roll Tide!

bolded is true.  

the reason averages are consistently below .300 is because hitting a baseball is hard.  That still doesn't make pitching more important because over the course of a season.  

Yes, in that one playoff game, that individual pitcher might be more important than that one hitter.  but it balances out by game 162.  

A hitter can set up a pitcher just as easily.  And while a pitcher has the ball, they still have to throw the ball in the right spot with the right speed and the proper break in order to win that battle.  

If you score 14 runs you can allow 13 and still win. 

In the marathon that is a baseball season, value is value regardless of who holds the ball.  

Could you construct your team to potentially perform better in a small sample of game?  Sure.  Get yourself 3 dominant pen arms, 2 ace starters and a bunch of guys that put the ball in play.  But you can't play every regular season game like you're pulling out all the stops.  

Can you steal a couple wins during the regular season by having a lock down pen?  sure.  But at the end of the day, does spending 7-10 mil on a reliever who has a much higher chance of being volatile and/or inconsistent bring you more value than using that money on a position player or starter?  

To me, last year's reliever market was way out of whack.  There were 9 relievers with 2.0 WAR or more.  Most of them weren't names you'd expect.  

There were 98 position players and 69 starters with 2.0 WAR or more and most were names you would expect.  

Now maybe WAR doesn't tell the whole story for relievers but it's not far off enough to make up the difference in value.  

[BackUpTheTruck]

10 minutes ago, Dochalo said:

bolded is true.  

the reason averages are consistently below .300 is because hitting a baseball is hard.  That still doesn't make pitching more important because over the course of a season.  

Yes, in that one playoff game, that individual pitcher might be more important than that one hitter.  but it balances out by game 162.  

A hitter can set up a pitcher just as easily.  And while a pitcher has the ball, they still have to throw the ball in the right spot with the right speed and the proper break in order to win that battle.  

If you score 14 runs you can allow 13 and still win. 

In the marathon that is a baseball season, value is value regardless of who holds the ball.  

Could you construct your team to potentially perform better in a small sample of game?  Sure.  Get yourself 3 dominant pen arms, 2 ace starters and a bunch of guys that put the ball in play.  But you can't play every regular season game like you're pulling out all the stops.  

Can you steal a couple wins during the regular season by having a lock down pen?  sure.  But at the end of the day, does spending 7-10 mil on a reliever who has a much higher chance of being volatile and/or inconsistent bring you more value than using that money on a position player or starter?  

To me, last year's reliever market was way out of whack.  There were 9 relievers with 2.0 WAR or more.  Most of them weren't names you'd expect.  

There were 98 position players and 69 starters with 2.0 WAR or more and most were names you would expect.  

Now maybe WAR doesn't tell the whole story for relievers but it's not far off enough to make up the difference in value.  

Hitting a baseball thrown by a major league pitcher is hard. Hitting a baseball off a tee is easy.

The marathon season is why you need depth, "next man up" as they say in football.

Hall of Fame hitters will go through long and terrible slumps, and guys like Adam Kennedy will hit 3 home runs in one game.

Pitchers like Eric Gagne earn nicknames like "Game Over."

[arch stanton]

The most consistent way to be successful is to dominate in one phase and be at least good in the other. Given injuries and bullpen fluctuations it seems like a better bet to dominate offensively, especially when you have the advantage of already having a consistent +180ish performer in your offense. Get enough pitching to be competitive and supercharge the offense 

[Lou]

I think the most consistent way to be successful is to dominate in both phases.

[T.G.]

I want the team to consistently dominate.

[BackUpTheTruck]

Wake up people!!!

It's possible!!

[nando714]

It’s fine

[Angel Oracle]

I still wonder how much David Robertson will command on say a two year deal.   He could be an ideal mentor for the younger guys in the pen, having served in pretty much every pen capacity (middle innings, set up, and closer). 

[ettin]

12 hours ago, Dochalo said:

bolded is true.  

the reason averages are consistently below .300 is because hitting a baseball is hard.  That still doesn't make pitching more important because over the course of a season.  

Yes, in that one playoff game, that individual pitcher might be more important than that one hitter.  but it balances out by game 162.  

A hitter can set up a pitcher just as easily.  And while a pitcher has the ball, they still have to throw the ball in the right spot with the right speed and the proper break in order to win that battle.  

If you score 14 runs you can allow 13 and still win. 

In the marathon that is a baseball season, value is value regardless of who holds the ball.  

Could you construct your team to potentially perform better in a small sample of game?  Sure.  Get yourself 3 dominant pen arms, 2 ace starters and a bunch of guys that put the ball in play.  But you can't play every regular season game like you're pulling out all the stops.  

Can you steal a couple wins during the regular season by having a lock down pen?  sure.  But at the end of the day, does spending 7-10 mil on a reliever who has a much higher chance of being volatile and/or inconsistent bring you more value than using that money on a position player or starter?  

To me, last year's reliever market was way out of whack.  There were 9 relievers with 2.0 WAR or more.  Most of them weren't names you'd expect.  

There were 98 position players and 69 starters with 2.0 WAR or more and most were names you would expect.  

Now maybe WAR doesn't tell the whole story for relievers but it's not far off enough to make up the difference in value.  

Also Eppler has been quoted as saying it is usually easy to pick up a good rental reliever near the Trade Deadline so pulling together a bunch of inexpensive arms to start the season is much more preferable to spending money in free agency or trade to start the year. Wait to see how well you are doing heading into the 2nd half of the season before committing resources to an elite reliever that can help you in the postseason. Besides with reliever volatility so high a guy like Edwin Diaz could have a serious injury in Spring Training or in the 1st half, knocking him out for a period of time which could impact his ability to help you in the postseason. I have nothing to back this up at the moment but it seems like most pitchers that make it to the Trade Deadline have a higher probability of finishing out the season (again this is a speculative observation I could be completely wrong and would love to see the actual data).