How does Elias build a playoff quality pitching staff?

[Pickles]

3 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

The White Sox won 93 games with a 77 year old drunk that didn't know the extra inning rules.

Talent is king.

Sure, and one could argue that the historical performance of the O's bullpen rested on both the players' talents, and Showalter's ability to maximize them.

BP arms are most heavily dependent on managers to use them correctly- certainly more so than starters and everyday players.

So yeah, I'd rather have Dennis Eckersley than Tony La Russa.

But La Russa can enhance his performance.

[Pickles]

1 minute ago, Sports Guy said:

It’s not less important than most of your regular starters.  Definitely more important than your back end of the rotation guys that provide little value…like Jordan Lyles.

The entirety of the bullpen is probably more important than your worst starting pitcher.  Sure.

But the starting rotation as a whole is still way more important than the bullpen when it comes to wins and losses.

[Can_of_corn]

6 minutes ago, Pickles said:

Sure, and one could argue that the historical performance of the O's bullpen rested on both the players' talents, and Showalter's ability to maximize them.

BP arms are most heavily dependent on managers to use them correctly- certainly more so than starters and everyday players.

So yeah, I'd rather have Dennis Eckersley than Tony La Russa.

But La Russa can enhance his performance.

Right, Bullpen over Manager.

Glad we agree. 

[Pickles]

Just now, Can_of_corn said:

Right, Bullpen over Manager.

Glad we agree. 

We do.  LOL.

[Sports Guy]

16 minutes ago, Pickles said:

The entirety of the bullpen is probably more important than your worst starting pitcher.  Sure.

But the starting rotation as a whole is still way more important than the bullpen when it comes to wins and losses.

Totally disagree with this and it seems most teams do nowadays as well (although I think they go overboard with it).

[Can_of_corn]

Just now, Sports Guy said:

Totally disagree with this and it seems most teams do nowadays as well (although I think they go overboard with it).

I think most teams do it that way because Bullpens are cheaper to assemble. 

[Frobby]

36 minutes ago, Pickles said:

Fair enough, I guess.

IMO, of all the things this FO needs to establish, "building a bullpen" is fairly down the list.

The list is very long.   But fixing the bullpen would be worth 10+ wins, if done right.  And, remove a major source of aggravation for fans like me who hate losing leads late.  

[Pickles]

1 minute ago, Frobby said:

The list is very long.   But fixing the bullpen would be worth 10+ wins, if done right.  And, remove a major source of aggravation for fans like me who hate losing leads late.  

Sure.  And I'm with you that it is the most frustrating way to lose.

But the question is simple:

Would you rather have a good starting staff or a good bullpen?

The former would be more likely to lead to Ws and Ls.

[Can_of_corn]

1 minute ago, Pickles said:

Sure.  And I'm with you that it is the most frustrating way to lose.

But the question is simple:

Would you rather have a good starting staff or a good bullpen?

The former would be more likely to lead to Ws and Ls.

I'd rather blow a lead late over getting blown out in the first couple innings.

At least with the blown lead I get to see some good baseball.

Nothing like being down 11-2 in the third.

[Pickles]

6 minutes ago, Sports Guy said:

Totally disagree with this and it seems most teams do nowadays as well (although I think they go overboard with it).

I think as a very simple thought experiment:

As long as your starters average over 4.5 innings a game- and I know of no team where that is not the case- they are going to pitch more innings than your bullpen, and thus be more important regarding wins and losses.

The O's just had a historically performing BP.  That was awesome.  And it was instrumental in making the playoffs three times, and generally outperforming our talent level.

I still would have preferred a historic starting staff.  And most assuredly that would have led to more Ws.

[Pickles]

1 minute ago, Can_of_corn said:

I'd rather blow a lead late over getting blown out in the first couple innings.

At least with the blown lead I get to see some good baseball.

Nothing like being down 11-2 in the third.

You make me reconsider.

I can't remember how many times I turned the game on this year to see the O's down 7-1 in the second, and just immediately turned it off.

[Frobby]

14 minutes ago, Sports Guy said:

Totally disagree with this and it seems most teams do nowadays as well (although I think they go overboard with it).

Bullpens have become far more important over time than they used to be.  They’re throwing 43% of the innings.  I’d have to say the rotation is still more important because 57% of the innings still come from the starters.  

[Frobby]

5 minutes ago, Pickles said:

You make me reconsider.

I can't remember how many times I turned the game on this year to see the O's down 7-1 in the second, and just immediately turned it off.

That’s awful but I still hate losing late more.  It feels like robbery.   I don’t like investing three hours of my time and feeling frustrated and angry when it’s over.   I’d rather invest 30 minutes and feel resigned to the fact that we’re hopelessly out of a game, and move on to doing something else.   

Also, there’s something really comforting about having a good bullpen.  It’s nice to have a 2-run lead after 6 innings and think to yourself, “this one’s probably in the bag,” as opposed to having a feeling of dread that the bullpen is going to blow it.   
 

[Sports Guy]

24 minutes ago, Pickles said:

I think as a very simple thought experiment:

As long as your starters average over 4.5 innings a game- and I know of no team where that is not the case- they are going to pitch more innings than your bullpen, and thus be more important regarding wins and losses.

The O's just had a historically performing BP.  That was awesome.  And it was instrumental in making the playoffs three times, and generally outperforming our talent level.

I still would have preferred a historic starting staff.  And most assuredly that would have led to more Ws.

Well, you aren’t really saying the same thing.

First of all, of course you would prefer a historic starting rotation.  I’m guessing that’s not a realistic proposition, especially in an era where they don’t have pitchers going deep into games.

Secondly, just because the starters pitch more innings doesn’t mean they are pitching higher leverage innings.  
 

The rotations nowadays, if you are lucky, you have 3 starters that can give you 150 innings or more.  In 2021, 55 pitchers pitched 150 innings.  In 2019 it was 70 and 2018 it was 74.

So, generally speaking, you are lucky to have 3 guys who can do it and most teams are fortunate to have 2.  So, you end up with a bunch of guys who aren’t that good or can only go a few innings or can’t stay healthy or whatever. 
 

So yea, I will take the very good pen over most teams 3-5 starters.  

[sportsfan8703]

So we’re going into 2023 with Means, GR, Hall, ?, ?. With adding a healthy Kjerstad(hopefully) and the #1 pick and draft pool. We have options and trade chips. Hopefully one of the internal options works out to be a piece of the rotation for next year behind the big three. 

Edited December 21, 2021 by sportsfan8703