Jump to content

Zach Britton is a stud


brianod

Recommended Posts

Having a shut down closer may not have a ton of real life value, but it certainly helps my stress level. It just feels so much worse to lose a game you were winning in the last inning than in the fifth.

Some of us feel like there is value, others don't, other believe any given night, any professional arm can come out of the pen and get the job done.

I am not in agreement with that way of thinking.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 64
  • Created
  • Last Reply
If it works don't fix it is perfectly fine logic. While we're using clich?s... I would rather not Peter Principle Britton. He's a great reliever, or has been so far. And he's doing it by throwing 88% max-effort sinkers. Chances are pretty good that he's not going to be a very good 6+ inning starter throwing 88% max-effort sinkers. I think he is particularly well suited to being a reliever.

Appreciate the well thought out response. Sinker ballers, especially lefties, aren't generally RP only guys. Maybe he can't go max effort over 6 innings, but maybe he doesn't need to.

Would John Lowenstein have been more valuable if instead of getting 3 PAs a year against lefties he'd been a full-time starter? I think probably not. Earl, and Joe Altobelli, figured out how to maximize his talent and minimize his weaknesses and got best value out of him.

I'm not interested in outliers or anecdotal evidence. It's possible that ZB can only be a reliever, but I want to know if that is the case before we pigeon hole him into a low ceiling role.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some of us feel like there is value, others don't, other believe any given night, any professional arm can come out of the pen and get the job done.

I am not in agreement with that way of thinking.

Despite all the evidence to the contrary? I mean, we have a lot of data on what happens when you throw a league average or even replacement level reliever into the game for an inning with no runners on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Despite all the evidence to the contrary? I mean, we have a lot of data on what happens when you throw a league average or even replacement level reliever into the game for an inning with no runners on.

I am not in agreement with that line of thinking

I like the lights out closer coming out and shutting down the door hard on the opposing team.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not interested in outliers or anecdotal evidence. It's possible that ZB can only be a reliever, but I want to know if that is the case before we pigeon hole him into a low ceiling role.

You said something like "if you have a bench player hitting well would you never start him?" And I meant my response to say, well, maybe the guy is hitting well in a limited role because the manager figured out a niche where his talents are maximized, and he's not exposed to situations that would emphasize his weak spots. I think that probably applies to Britton.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You said something like "if you have a bench player hitting well would you never start him?" And I meant my response to say, well, maybe the guy is hitting well in a limited role because the manager figured out a niche where his talents are maximized, and he's not exposed to situations that would emphasize his weak spots. I think that probably applies to Britton.

Maybe, but I doubt the issue has been explored as thoroughly as it should be. A lot of the things being said here were also said about Chris Sale. The downside of trying is just so minimal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The downside of trying is just so minimal.
Is it? It increases injury risk. It has a ripple effect throughout the rotation and bullpen, figuring out contingencies for both if it works or doesn't work. Britton has to try to transition to a different approach. The biggest risk is that he's a 4.50 ERA starter and it takes six months to figure that out and in the mean time you had to find a closer who may or may not have been any good.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is it? It increases injury risk.

Agreed.

It has a ripple effect throughout the rotation and bullpen, figuring out contingencies for both if it works or doesn't work.

If bullpens or rotations fall apart from the removal of one piece, they are faulty to begin with.

Britton has to try to transition to a different approach. The biggest risk is that he's a 4.50 ERA starter and it takes six months to figure that out and in the mean time you had to find a closer who may or may not have been any good.

You don't need to find a "closer" because there's no such thing. We have relievers that can easily fill in as closers now. We would need to replace a bullpen arm, which is just about the easiest thing to replace in baseball. That's why as great as Britton was last year, he was only worth 1.0 fWAR.

And maybe Zach proves to be a bust as a starter, though he would really only need to have a sub 4 FiP at about 150 innings to surpass his current value. Then we simply move him back to the pen after a year, and all we've lost is a little bit of value.

So yes, outside the nightmare scenario of a serious injury brought on by extra use, the downside is shockingly low. Considering the Free Agency we face, maximizing value would be smart.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Agreed.

If bullpens or rotations fall apart from the removal of one piece, they are faulty to begin with.

You don't need to find a "closer" because there's no such thing. We have relievers that can easily fill in as closers now. We would need to replace a bullpen arm, which is just about the easiest thing to replace in baseball. That's why as great as Britton was last year, he was only worth 1.0 fWAR.

And maybe Zach proves to be a bust as a starter, though he would really only need to have a sub 4 FiP at about 150 innings to surpass his current value. Then we simply move him back to the pen after a year, and all we've lost is a little bit of value.

So yes, outside the nightmare scenario of a serious injury brought on by extra use, the downside is shockingly low. Considering the Free Agency we face, maximizing value would be smart.

I know metrics has a place in baseball.

But, when a light out closer, closers out 37 saves, with a WHIP at .907 is only consider a 1.0 fWAR.

Sorry, but that just isn't right.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know metrics has a place in baseball.

But, when a light out closer, closers out 37 saves, with a WHIP at .907 is only consider a 1.0 fWAR.

Sorry, but that just isn't right.

Not sure what your definition of "lights out" is, but he blew 4 saves. Jim Johnson had a year when he blew 3, and two where he blew 5.

The list of closers that blew 4 or fewer saves last year is quite long. Are they all "lights out", or is it possible that a lights out closer isn't that rare, and thus, not that valuable?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not sure what your definition of "lights out" is, but he blew 4 saves. Jim Johnson had a year when he blew 3, and two where he blew 5.

The list of closers that blew 4 or fewer saves last year is quite long. Are they all "lights out", or is it possible that a lights out closer isn't that rare, and thus, not that valuable?

Yes, 37 out of 41, is 90+%, which is above the league norm, should be considered lights out.

This year he is at 93%.

Okay, so let's not call it rare, but, when you get in this range, you are at the top of your class, maybe call it elite.

There are more guys at the league average or under than above.

Bottom line, if this was my team, he stays at closer. IMO.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know metrics has a place in baseball.

But, when a light out closer, closers out 37 saves, with a WHIP at .907 is only consider a 1.0 fWAR.

Sorry, but that just isn't right.

Can't edit my earlier post, so I'll add this here:

I would argue that this is where metrics are the MOST important. We all are comfortable when stats back up what we already knew. Miguel Cabrera has a great wOBA, but who was surprised by that?

It's when stats challenge us that they are truly worthwhile. I used to think that sac bunting the runner over to second was a smart play when you just needed one run. But then better stats came along and told us that every year baseball has ever been played the odds of scoring are greater with a runner on first and no outs than with a runner on second and one out. I had to adopt my thinking.

By the same logic I used to think a great closer was as good as a middle of the rotation guy. Not quite an ace, but really, really valuable. But stats came along and proved to me that getting 3 outs with a 1-3 run lead and no runners on wasn't that difficult, and thus, not that valuable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can't edit my earlier post, so I'll add this here:

I would argue that this is where metrics are the MOST important. We all are comfortable when stats back up what we already knew. Miguel Cabrera has a great wOBA, but who was surprised by that?

It's when stats challenge us that they are truly worthwhile. I used to think that sac bunting the runner over to second was a smart play when you just needed one run. But then better stats came along and told us that every year baseball has ever been played the odds of scoring are greater with a runner on first and no outs than with a runner on second and one out. I had to adopt my thinking.

By the same logic I used to think a great closer was as good as a middle of the rotation guy. Not quite an ace, but really, really valuable. But stats came along and proved to me that getting 3 outs with a 1-3 run lead and no runners on wasn't that difficult, and thus, not that valuable.

That is very true.

But, maybe it's me, but it seams like more of our saves are nail bitters.

I remember how Earl would grumble about how he would just love to have a normal 1-2-3 ninth inning and save his ulcer some heartburn.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The problem is that as soon as next year Britton becomes too expensive as a closer. What do you do? Trade him? Absorb the cost? Switch him back to SP? Which brings you the best return for your money? IIRC Britton's struggles as a SP were primarily due to his inability to throw the sinker consistently. He doesn't seem to have that problem now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The problem is that as soon as next year Britton becomes too expensive as a closer. What do you do? Trade him? Absorb the cost? Switch him back to SP? Which brings you the best return for your money? IIRC Britton's struggles as a SP were primarily due to his inability to throw the sinker consistently. He doesn't seem to have that problem now.

Throwing the sinker 83% of the time, is not going to work for a SP going through the lineup 3-4 times.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...