Would you consider putting Britton in the rotation at the start of 2016?

[Number5]

Does the data actually show that?

Don't know. As stated, it sure seemed that way. Seemed like he either got shelled in the first couple of innings, or he went the distance for the win. Weaver spoke of it rather often. I don't want to look it up... don't want to mess with Oriole lore. LOL.

[Can_of_corn]

So... hard... to... not... click... link. It kills me that bb-ref hard-locks, have to hit the power button to reset my work computer. Strangest thing. I have to goof off at work with one hand tied behind my back.

I did not know that.

[Tony-OH]

Small sample sizes don't show anything. He hadn't even faced enough batters for most of his stats to stabilize, let alone for us to start drawing conclusions.

Major league baseball managers, scouts and executives don't have time to "draw conclusions" from whatever amount of time you and your ilk deem necessary. They use the evidence at hand. You can choose to run around and act like this is some small sample size (it's not), but at the end of the day, it is information that is used to make a decision, a decision that was proven very right on the field by Zach Britton. Suggesting he can somehow magically hold onto his jump in stuff through a start when he's rarely been able to do this is nothing more than hope and/or conjecture on your part.

[Tony-OH]

So not only is it a poor sample, it's an inaccurate conclusion as well?

I'm curious about another thing, what is the injury risk of starters vs relievers? What about when stabilized for IP?

No it's not and your starting to be jerk for no other reason than to be a jerk. If you want to debate that is fine, start with crap like this and our debate will come to an end quickly and decisively like a Britton 98 mph sinker (that he throws as a reliever).

[Redskins Rick]

Suddenly that Kenny Roger's tune comes to my mind, about knowing when to fold em.

I think Britton is something that needs to be left where he is.

"If it isn't broke, don't mess fork around with it."

Of course, just IMO.

[Old#5fan]

Can you give an example of a successful major league starter, that wasn't a knuckleball pitcher, who used one pitch 90% of the time?

I'm checking the numbers from the last few years and the league leaders in FB% for starters are a bit over 70% Britton is about 90%.

I could be wrong but didn't Scott Erickson and Kevin Brown both pretty much throw sinkers all the time?

[Can_of_corn]

I could be wrong but didn't Scott Erickson and Kevin Brown both pretty much throw sinkers all the time?

I don't think it was anything close to 90%.

[DrungoHazewood]

I could be wrong but didn't Scott Erickson and Kevin Brown both pretty much throw sinkers all the time?

I don't think it was anything close to 90%.

Fangraphs has data on Brown's and Erickson's last four seasons, and they threw 74%, and 64% fastballs, respectively.

[Frobby]

I'm perplexed how people aren't able to understand this. When Britton was having control issues and battling problems with consistency as a starter, he had a repertoire of 70% fastballs, 20% sliders and 10% changeups. Since he's been a reliever, he's thrown 90% fastballs, 10% sliders and gotten rid of his changeup. It's unrealistic to expect Britton to be as effective as a starter throwing 90% fastballs. And when he had more variety in his repertoire, he was ineffective and his command was very inconsistent. What makes people think he would be any good as a starter? Everything about him screams reliever.

These points were discussed in the OP. Of course we don't know if he will be effective as a starter while mixing in other pitches. But for the reasons discussed there, it is by no means a foregone conclusion that he couldn't be an effective starter.

Go back to look at Britton's first 10 big league starts. He posted a 2.35 ERA and averaged 6.5 IP per start. He was spotty after that, and missed some time in July and August with a sore shoulder, but still pitched quite a few good games. I count 13 quality starts in 28 starts. And by the way, that's with a pretty bad defense behind him featuring Mark Reynolds at 3B. To say it's impossible that he could be a good starter is just wrong. It's just a matter of whether it is worthwhile to find out.

[Ruzious]

Oh, and while we're at it, let's move Manny to SS.

<ducks>

[FanSince88]

Not sure how long he's going to be under team control.

I would try as hard as possible to keep him in the closer role to start next season. He could possibly be stretched out if the rotation gets hit by a wave of injuries. Or if the team is eliminated from contention early in 2016 and has little to lose, I would like to see him get a shot at starting again during the 2nd half to see what he's got.

At his best, he'd probably be an above-average, Chen/Gonzo type of starter -- probably not with the ceiling of a Gausman or Ubaldo. The question is, is that sort of starter (very good but not great), more or less valuable than a shutdown closer? He can't be both at once, so you have to pick one or the other. I'd imagine which is better depends a lot on what else is going on with your team and what your needs are. But in general terms, it seems like a tough call. Starters only pitch every five games, while a reliever can pitch consecutive days -- but good relievers aren't worth much if your starters can't protect a lead long enough to get to the bullpen.

[FanSince88]

I would consider it if Britton actually wants to do it.

I recall that even earlier this year, I heard Zach do an interview where he basically said "I really didn't plan to be a reliever but I'm happy to help the team out however I can."

REading between the lines, it seemed like he's jump at the chance to be a starter again, even though he knows he's become very good as a closer.

[Frobby]

He didn't suddenly develop that "nasty pitch of his". He always had the good sinker, it's just that sinker becomes a real weapon in short one inning stints. Most guys stuff play up in short stints. It's the reason why I still think Tim Berry will be a major league pitcher, but it will be in relief.

I think Britton's sinker is more effective now because (1) he gets the uptick in velocity being a reliever, and more importantly, (2) he has learned how to throw it for a strike at the bottom of the zone when he needs to. When he first came up, he had batters swinging at sinkers in the dirt, but once they learned to lay off, he had trouble throwing it for a strike. Wallace and Chiti worked with him on that intensively in the spring of 2014 and fixed that issue. I have very little doubt that Britton's sinker would be a very effective weapon as a starter now that he can command it, even if he lost a couple of mph by starting. But he wouldn't be able to rely on it as heavily as he does out of the bullpen.

I also think that some of Britton's added velocity comes from the weighted ball routine he developed, and not just from the uptick almost everyone gets when they move to the pen. He averaged 92 as a starter in 2011 but I would bet he could average 93+ now in a starting role.

So really, it comes down to the secondary pitches. He could probably rely on his best pitch more than most starters do, but he'd still need to throw something else 30% of the time, as others have said.

[LookitsPuck]

Notice something this year? A 10.1 SO/9 compared to last year's 7.3. As a starter he bounced from 5.7 to 7.9 to 4.1. No doubt injuries played a role there. In the minors he was a 7.2 kind of guy. So the change to the bullpen and probably the addition of some sharper pitches this year probably helped the uptick. And the weighted ball.

[Can_of_corn]

I think Britton's sinker is more effective now because the strike zone moved down to include it.

I also think that he can average 93 since that is what he used to average when he stated.