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

[DrungoHazewood]

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.

Maybe. But most pitchers lose velocity over time. Fangraphs says that Britton peaked at 92 mph on his fastball in 2012. Others who were at about 92 in 2012 were Porcello, King Felix, Ubaldo, and Jeremy Guthrie, and all have lost at least a mph off their fastballs since.

[Can_of_corn]

Maybe. But most pitchers lose velocity over time. Fangraphs says that Britton peaked at 92 mph on his fastball in 2012. Others who were at about 92 in 2012 were Porcello, King Felix, Ubaldo, and Jeremy Guthrie, and all have lost at least a mph off their fastballs since.

Brooks has him higher then that. (94.31)

http://www.brooksbaseball.net/velo.php?player=502154&time=&startDate=03/30/2007&endDate=07/16/2015&s_type=2

[weams]

When Verlander threw to a 4.18 FIP in 2008 the league ERA was 4.35, so he was a bit better than average. When Britton had a 4.00 FIP in 2011 the league mark was 3.94. The context there was 10% different in Britton's favor. And, of course, Verlander improved dramatically and became very durable and successful while Britton slid backwards and was hurt and only regained his footing with a role change.

Greinke is approaching Gibsonian numbers. And several this season are looking square at Pedro Martinez. I think it is easier to pitch.

[OFFNY]

There's no question that Zach Britton is a dominant reliever, and in that role he's able to thrive using one dominant pitch 90% of the time. As a starter, he wouldn't be able to use that approach.

I'm still a bit tempted to try him as a starter at the beginning of 2016, however. If you look back on is career, he had a pretty nice debut season as a starter, but had shoulder issues in the second half that detracted from his final stats. Those problems persisted the next year, and the following year he had command issues and didn't show any consistency. He worked out with the weighted balls in the winter of 2013-14, and before it was known what his role would be, Brady Anderson predicted we'd see a different Britton in 2014 due to his conditioning. He worked on his command issues with Wallace and Chiti that spring, got put in the bullpen, and the rest is history.

For me, it's not as simple as saying Britton has succeeded because he was moved to the bullpen. He got healthy, he found a workout routine that worked for him, and he learned to command his sinker. He also matured and gained confidence. So, am I sure that he could be an effective starter? No, not really. But I think it might be a good thing to find out. I never joined those folks who wanted to try Jim Johnson as a starter, but I'm much more interested in seeing what Britton could do. Especially with our one lefty starter likely to leave in free agency this winter.

What say you?

An interesting topic, Frank.

I'll go with the "Bird in the hand is worth 2 in the bush" philosophy on this one.

[sportsfan8703]

Here's the real question. Should O'day and Britton be set up guys with Givens as the "closer". I'd rather have Britton in the "fire stopper" role than in the three run save role. Then Britton could give us 70+ IP in high leverage situations instead of just the 50 most closers get.

[Stotle]

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.

I wouldn't say impossible. But I'd definitely say unlikely, and with limited time left with him under control I think the best case is you get 1.5 years of solid starter production (after building the arm strength back up and taking into account any transitional hiccups). Then he jumps ship as a free agent looking for a big contract.

[sportsfan8703]

That's a theoretical question but not a real question. There is no way that Buck would "demote" Britton from the closer role to a setup role.

Only fans on 105.7 would think it was a demotion. He'd still make the same in Arb and on the FA market. Let's just say that I'm happy he can be that weapon we needed and Buck will use that option when needed.

[Stotle]

Here's the real question. Should O'day and Britton be set up guys with Givens as the "closer". I'd rather have Britton in the "fire stopper" role than in the three run save role. Then Britton could give us 70+ IP in high leverage situations instead of just the 50 most closers get.

It's what he *should* do, most likely -- maybe not with Givens as the closer. But I can't imagine there is a manager in the game that would demote a sitting, successful closer unless it is to put in place another successful closer with a strong track record (like Washington just did).

[DrungoHazewood]

Only fans on 105.7 would think it was a demotion. He'd still make the same in Arb and on the FA market. Let's just say that I'm happy he can be that weapon we needed and Buck will use that option when needed.

While we can argue theoretical constructs and talk about reliever optimization, the guy from the pen who pitches the end of the game has been the team's best reliever since the 1920s. We might want that to be different, we might argue that the closer shouldn't be the guy with the most implied value and true skill, but that don't make it true. If you're pitching the 9th, and then you're not, it's a demotion to everyone except you and 12 other guys.

[Reboulet'sStache]

I would trade him for a big return before I tried to stretch him out.

[Redskins Rick]

IMO.

Britton stays as my closer until his $$$$ gets to Papelpon level.

Just because you can throw him more than an inning, is only a blessing for the manager, and allows the manager to utilize him, when the pen is stretched thin.

again, just my own thoughts.

[TouchemAll]

I am all for not messing with something that's working REALLY WELL.

I think before I did that I would trade him for a bundle when the $$$ got to the point of outrageous.

[Redskins Rick]

I am all for not messing with something that's working REALLY WELL.

I think before I did that I would trade him for a bundle when the $$$ got to the point of outrageous.

:agree:

[Grt 2BA FL Gator]

There's no question that Zach Britton is a dominant reliever, and in that role he's able to thrive using one dominant pitch 90% of the time. As a starter, he wouldn't be able to use that approach.

I'm still a bit tempted to try him as a starter at the beginning of 2016, however. If you look back on is career, he had a pretty nice debut season as a starter, but had shoulder issues in the second half that detracted from his final stats. Those problems persisted the next year, and the following year he had command issues and didn't show any consistency. He worked out with the weighted balls in the winter of 2013-14, and before it was known what his role would be, Brady Anderson predicted we'd see a different Britton in 2014 due to his conditioning. He worked on his command issues with Wallace and Chiti that spring, got put in the bullpen, and the rest is history.

For me, it's not as simple as saying Britton has succeeded because he was moved to the bullpen. He got healthy, he found a workout routine that worked for him, and he learned to command his sinker. He also matured and gained confidence. So, am I sure that he could be an effective starter? No, not really. But I think it might be a good thing to find out. I never joined those folks who wanted to try Jim Johnson as a starter, but I'm much more interested in seeing what Britton could do. Especially with our one lefty starter likely to leave in free agency this winter.

What say you?

Honestly, I still have fresh memories of Matusz's dominant second half in 2010. Every time he does well I want us to give him another try as a starter. When he was right he threw all four pitches for strikes and could work backwards. Whose to say he wasn't a head case like Arrieta? In a way, he's not that different than Chen stuff wise. In fact, he probably has more of an arsenal. He's less risky because his role isn't a crucial, but I'd be down to give them both another shot. The concern is that they go all Daniel Bard on us, but I think it could very well be worth that risk to find our lefty starter next season.

[JayThomas]

Honestly, I still have fresh memories of Matusz's dominant second half in 2010. Every time he does well I want us to give him another try as a starter. When he was right he threw all four pitches for strikes and could work backwards. Whose to say he wasn't a head case like Arrieta? In a way, he's not that different than Chen stuff wise. In fact, he probably has more of an arsenal. He's less risky because his role isn't a crucial, but I'd be down to give them both another shot. The concern is that they go all Daniel Bard on us, but I think it could very well be worth that risk to find our lefty starter next season.

I agree with you all around.