Time for a new closer, Johnson's time has come

[DrungoHazewood]

I like the way the pen is set up now. O'Day is an old school fireman. You can bring him in any time to get out of a jam. JJ is a decent closer. The only other guy I would try as a closer is Hunter. Matusz and Strop don't have the temperament IMO. That's the chief quality a closer has to have, IMO, the right temperament. It's not so much the stuff.

I think people forget that O'Day is probably as good as Johnson, and he's already coming into the high leverage tight situations. A lot of times the designated closer isn't the best pitcher on the staff, he's just the guy who gets the 9th and the up-and-coming O'Day or BJ Ryan shuts the door in the other situations. That's a good situation. What might get you in trouble is when you trade the closer or let him walk and then you "promote" O'Day or Ryan to the 9th and you don't have a suitable replacment for earlier on.

[Il BuonO]

As I said I don't think it's the stuff. It's the ability to come back after getting hit. Like with boxing. Some guys are invincible until they get knocked down. Then not so much. The great ones can comer back after a knock out. We'll see with JJ. He had such a long run without losing, he forgot how to do that. Hopefully he'll remember soon.

I know what you're saying, but if it had nothing to do with stuff Kevin Gregg would still be our closer. I never thought his stuff was all that great, but he had attitude to spare. I mean, the guy was crazy enough to take on Ortiz.

[DrungoHazewood]

What I really want is the elimination of ALL roles on the pitching staff. No LOOGYs, no Closers, no Starters.

You truly believe that there is little or no value in either matchups, or pitchers developing a mindset for a specific role?

I tend to think that the modern relief setup isn't theoretically maximizing value, but it's a pretty good workable proxy for that. I used to think your best reliever's role should be "whenever the LI is highest." Problem is, closers already (usually) have the highest LI on the staff, and it's pretty darn hard to warm a guy up fast enough to make a difference when your setup guy unexpectedly walks the first two batters in the 7th and drives up the LI to closer level. It's also true that modern closers work with higher average LIs than 70s firemen, and usually it's not close.

It's also impossible to know with any great certainty which situation will be the most important. Maybe two on, one out, up two in the 7th looks great now, but what of the one-run lead in the 9th with the heart of the order coming up?

You have to balance theoretical optimization with workable implementation.

[Can_of_corn]

You truly believe that there is little or no value in either matchups, or pitchers developing a mindset for a specific role?

I tend to think that the modern relief setup isn't theoretically maximizing value, but it's a pretty good workable proxy for that. I used to think your best reliever's role should be "whenever the LI is highest." Problem is, closers already (usually) have the highest LI on the staff, and it's pretty darn hard to warm a guy up fast enough to make a difference when your setup guy unexpectedly walks the first two batters in the 7th and drives up the LI to closer level. It's also true that modern closers work with higher average LIs than 70s firemen, and usually it's not close.

It's also impossible to know with any great certainty which situation will be the most important. Maybe two on, one out, up two in the 7th looks great now, but what of the one-run lead in the 9th with the heart of the order coming up?

You have to balance theoretical optimization with workable implementation.

I want 14-18 guys that can go through a MLB lineup once. That way I don't have to pay for closers, I don't have to pay for starters, I don't have to have guys on the staff making more then a couple million a year. I can take all those resources and put them toward the offense and defense.

[sfosfan]

Oh yea... nothing will solve the O's problems quicker than insisting the starters pitch to exhaustion. I know last night's game would have been much better if Freddy had pitched another 2-3 innings when he was gassed.

I have a more realistic solution: get a time machine and have the O's current starters face the mediocre lineups of 1970, chock full of Belangers and .575 OPS defense-only players and a pitcher batting 9th.

Well, I did state the point is that ONE starter who can pitch a lot of innings would be most helpful because the bullpen is overworked. I was certianly not implying the old man Garcia needs to be that guy. Nor was I implying the game is the same today- of course it's different now than 1970. But a huge problem is the lack of innings pitched by the starters is causing bullpen pain. Whether or not JJ is the closer is a pointless debate since the next closer will still be overworked, unless the starters can go deeper. Or the offense improves and we don't need the closer so much. Since the offense is doing fine and I wouldn't keep my fingers crossed for much improvement. But you all can go ahead and bash JJ all you want for blowing three saves in a row. Just be sure you bash Machado when he goes hittless in three straight games, or whatever.

Sadly, your more realistic solution of going back in time might be more realistic thatn expecting the current starters to pitch more inninings. I'm still keeping my fingers crossed on the latter.

[DrungoHazewood]

I want 14-18 guys that can go through a MLB lineup once. That way I don't have to pay for closers, I don't have to pay for starters, I don't have to have guys on the staff making more then a couple million a year. I can take all those resources and put them toward the offense and defense.

How do you do that in the constraints of a 25-man roster? Well, unless some of your pitchers also can play the field.

[Can_of_corn]

How do you do that in the constraints of a 25-man roster? Well, unless some of your pitchers also can play the field.

Norfolk and Bowie of course. The same way DD has used nine starters already this season. Shuttle the ones with options back and forth. Hopefully you could use a main core of 11 guys but you would need depth.

[DrungoHazewood]

Norfolk and Bowie of course. The same way DD has used nine starters already this season. Shuttle the ones with options back and forth. Hopefully you could use a main core of 11 guys but you would need depth.

That would be a tall order, having to shuffle that many pitchers back and forth with limits on how often someone can be sent down and then recalled. Problems would really crop up when someone has a bad day and either has to be pulled early or takes 60 pitches to get through the lineup. Or you go extras. Then it just kind of snowballs.

You also lose matchups (and you don't gain them back on offense since you'll have at least as short a bench as you do with a standard setup). I guess you could set up your best pitchers to go last to maximize leverage, but that only goes so far... they pretty much have to pitch whether it's 1-0 or 14-0.

I guess (optimally) everyone would be pitching about, what, 50-60 games and 120 innings, give or take? So far this year the Orioles have averaged 38.1 batters faced per game, which means you'd need 5 pitchers per game if you limit them to once through the order, but the last guy would only face a few batters. With 4-5 pitchers per game you might be able to have most guys only go once every three games, but some pitchers would have to go every other.

It's interesting. Might work. Obviously everyone couldn't do this because it's a non-optimal way to use a Verlander or a Halladay or the like. If you got a workhorse starter coming up you'd almost have to trade him. Or convince him to throw three innings every other day.

[Can_of_corn]

That would be a tall order, having to shuffle that many pitchers back and forth with limits on how often someone can be sent down and then recalled. Problems would really crop up when someone has a bad day and either has to be pulled early or takes 60 pitches to get through the lineup. Or you go extras. Then it just kind of snowballs.

You also lose matchups (and you don't gain them back on offense since you'll have at least as short a bench as you do with a standard setup). I guess you could set up your best pitchers to go last to maximize leverage, but that only goes so far... they pretty much have to pitch whether it's 1-0 or 14-0.

I guess (optimally) everyone would be pitching about, what, 50-60 games and 120 innings, give or take? So far this year the Orioles have averaged 38.1 batters faced per game, which means you'd need 5 pitchers per game if you limit them to once through the order, but the last guy would only face a few batters. With 4-5 pitchers per game you might be able to have most guys only go once every three games, but some pitchers would have to go every other.

It's interesting. Might work. Obviously everyone couldn't do this because it's a non-optimal way to use a Verlander or a Halladay or the like. If you got a workhorse starter coming up you'd almost have to trade him. Or convince him to throw three innings every other day.

I would hope that the additional performance gained by facing each batter only one time would lower that number rather dramatically.

[SteveO]

I want 14-18 guys that can go through a MLB lineup once. That way I don't have to pay for closers, I don't have to pay for starters, I don't have to have guys on the staff making more then a couple million a year. I can take all those resources and put them toward the offense and defense.

Interesting idea. My guess though is that the O's would be a team that no pitcher that has a choice would want to pitch for. If the resources are going to the offense and defense you better have a great pipeline of arms

[Can_of_corn]

Interesting idea. My guess though is that the O's would be a team that no pitcher that has a choice would want to pitch for. If the resources are going to the offense and defense you better have a great pipeline of arms

You miss the part about not paying anyone more then 2 million or so a season? Once they get expensive you flip them, you also would be scouring the high minors for failed starters that could thrive under the new approach. You would also be in on ML reclamation projects like DD already is.

It would take a lot of work sure, and yes established star pitchers will hate it. They will really hate it if it works and other teams follow suit.

[SteveO]

You miss the part about not paying anyone more then 2 million or so a season? Once they get expensive you flip them, you also would be scouring the high minors for failed starters that could thrive under the new approach. You would also be in on ML reclamation projects like DD already is.

It would take a lot of work sure, and yes established star pitchers will hate it. They will really hate it if it works and other teams follow suit.

Its a radical approach and one that perhaps could work but I am skeptical.

What decent ML pitcher with a choice is going to want to be shuffled back and forth between Norfolk/Bowie and Baltimore

You also have to deal with waiver issues/options and finding 14-18 guys who can consistently get people out even once through a lineup is easier said then done. If it were that easy teams would not be looking for bullpen help.

Not to mention the fact that anyone half decent will bolt first chance they can and I would imagine any decent pitcher you draft who fancies themselves a starter could have second thoughts about entering into a system that will limit their earning potential.

Its a k idea but at the end of the day prob creates more issues than it solves.

How about this though go with a 12 man staff (4 starters who are decent, 5 relievers and 3 guys who fill that last rotation spot each getting like 2-3 innings) for example Arrieta, Garcia and TJ McFarland could carry the #5 spot in our rotation when Chen is back. If a guy is rolling like Arrieta or someone and you can let him go 4-6 innings and have that 6th bullpen arm

[Can_of_corn]

Its a radical approach and one that perhaps could work but I am skeptical.

What decent ML pitcher with a choice is going to want to be shuffled back and forth between Norfolk/Bowie and Baltimore

You also have to deal with waiver issues/options and finding 14-18 guys who can consistently get people out even once through a lineup is easier said then done. If it were that easy teams would not be looking for bullpen help.

Not to mention the fact that anyone half decent will bolt first chance they can and I would imagine any decent pitcher you draft who fancies themselves a starter could have second thoughts about entering into a system that will limit their earning potential.

Its a k idea but at the end of the day prob creates more issues than it solves.

How about this though go with a 12 man staff (4 starters who are decent, 5 relievers and 3 guys who fill that last rotation spot each getting like 2-3 innings) for example Arrieta, Garcia and TJ McFarland could carry the #5 spot in our rotation when Chen is back. If a guy is rolling like Arrieta or someone and you can let him go 4-6 innings and have that 6th bullpen arm

The idea is that most of them won't have a choice. The bulk of your stable of arms will be kids still under team control.

This year's O's would have been an interesting springboard for the idea. Trade Hammel, O'Day, Strop, Ayala and Johnson. Go with a staff of Tillman, Gonzo, Chen, Arrieta, Matusz, Hunter, McFarland, Johnson, Patton, and Britton, There are 10 of your 14-18. Gausman, Wada and Bundy would also be in the eventual pipline, in fact Gausman would already be up since it would be easy to shuffle him down enough to push back super 2.

[Can_of_corn]

I think it's a good idea in theory. Of course, it's tough finding 5 pitchers who can go 6 consistently and perform well. It might not be quite as easy, as you think, to find 12-15 that can go 3 consistently and do well.

Oh I am not saying it would be easy. And yes some tweaking of the general idea would have to happen.

[DrungoHazewood]

I would hope that the additional performance gained by facing each batter only one time would lower that number rather dramatically.

I don't think it's possible to dramatically lower the number of batters you have to face each game. Sandy Koufax averaged over 31 batters faced per game his last year, and he was pitching like an inner circle HOFer in an extreme pitcher's environment. There's no way you'd face less than 34, 35 batters a game.