How does Elias build a playoff quality pitching staff?

[Can_of_corn]

27 minutes ago, Sports Guy said:

Glad someone can see the forest through the trees.

You also need to push the young arms to see if they can work through things.  It’s how they learn and how you learn.

In a development year, it’s exactly what he should be doing.

If you have data that shows, conclusively, that a guy can't get through a lineup more than twice you aren't doing anyone any favors by sending him back out there.   You aren't putting him in a situation to succeed and your putting the bullpen under more stress.

We do analytics now right?  How about we managed like it?

[OsFanSinceThe80s]

10 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

If you have data that shows, conclusively, that a guy can't get through a lineup more than twice you aren't doing anyone any favors by sending him back out there.   You aren't putting him in a situation to succeed and your putting the bullpen under more stress.

We do analytics now right?  How about we managed like it?

I'd settle for some pitchers who can get through a lineup once as a start. 

[Frobby]

19 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

If you have data that shows, conclusively, that a guy can't get through a lineup more than twice you aren't doing anyone any favors by sending him back out there.   You aren't putting him in a situation to succeed and your putting the bullpen under more stress.

We do analytics now right?  How about we managed like it?

Part of SG’s point is that we have young pitchers who are still learning.   A guy who has trouble getting through 5 innings in his first 10-20 starts in the majors won’t necessarily have that problem when he’s more experienced.  And you kind of have to find out.   

Meanwhile, even if analytics tell you that a  starter’s performance deteriorates the third time through a lineup, analytics also tell you that relievers can’t pitch two days out of every three over 162 games.  So, you have to balance the chances of deteriorating performance by your starter against the overtaxing of your bullpen.   And sometimes (gasp) you have to judge by what’s actually happening in the game and what the recent usage of the bullpen has been, not just on generalized data.   
 

[Can_of_corn]

9 minutes ago, Frobby said:

Part of SG’s point is that we have young pitchers who are still learning.   A guy who has trouble getting through 5 innings in his first 10-20 starts in the majors won’t necessarily have that problem when he’s more experienced.  And you kind of have to find out.   

Meanwhile, even if analytics tell you that a  starter’s performance deteriorates the third time through a lineup, analytics also tell you that relievers can’t pitch two days out of every three over 162 games.  So, you have to balance the chances of deteriorating performance by your starter against the overtaxing of your bullpen.   And sometimes (gasp) you have to judge by what’s actually happening in the game and what the recent usage of the bullpen has been, not just on generalized data.   
 

Which would make sense if Hyde would hang them out to dry.  But he didn't.  So what the bullpen pitches a third of an inning less but doesn't start with a clean inning and instead has baserunners on?  Does that save the bullpen?

 

[Frobby]

54 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

Which would make sense if Hyde would hang them out to dry.  But he didn't.  So what the bullpen pitches a third of an inning less but doesn't start with a clean inning and instead has baserunners on?  Does that save the bullpen?

 

That’s a topic for another day.  I’ve been studying how often relievers enter games with runners on base and whether the recent O’s teams are abnormal in that regard.  Not sure I have a clear answer that sorts out the effect of manager decisions vs. the effect of having bad pitchers (= more baserunners).   Will write it up eventually.     Just to tease this a bit, in the Hyde era, relievers have entered with an average of .55-.64 runners on base; in the Buck era it was .45-.50, with 6 seasons at .50 or below.   

[Pickles]

4 hours ago, Can_of_corn said:

If you have data that shows, conclusively, that a guy can't get through a lineup more than twice you aren't doing anyone any favors by sending him back out there.   You aren't putting him in a situation to succeed and your putting the bullpen under more stress.

We do analytics now right?  How about we managed like it?

The idea that there is "data" out there that could show this "conclusively" is deeply flawed.

[Sports Guy]

6 hours ago, Can_of_corn said:

If you have data that shows, conclusively, that a guy can't get through a lineup more than twice you aren't doing anyone any favors by sending him back out there.   You aren't putting him in a situation to succeed and your putting the bullpen under more stress.

We do analytics now right?  How about we managed like it?

There’s not enough data yet to support this in either direction.  

[Aristotelian]

What guys do we have "conclusive" evidence that they can get through 4 IP but not 5-6? There were some theories about Jorge Lopez but then he got blown up early a few times as well as in the bullpen. I think he had good numbers in the 4th inning but if he gets blown up in the 1st what does that matter?

[emmett16]

On 12/21/2021 at 5:55 PM, Frobby said:

No team is using its starters anywhere close to 70% of the time.  Oakland was the highest at 64%.   Tampa (who I think we’d agree is a good team) was at 52%.   Of course, that’s distorted by their frequent use of “openers.”   But still, most good teams today are around 60/40.   So, call it 1.5 times more important.   

My back of the napkin math was a little off.  I tied to bookend best and worse with 60-70% and went a little too high and not low enough (rays). I thought SP would be about 1.75x more important at but see I’m high on that, too.  How’d you find SP vs. RP innings totals?  I looked at a few good teams & bad teams on bbref and jotted down totals.  Couldn’t find how to categorize by starting v relieving.  

[now]

On 12/23/2021 at 2:46 PM, Frobby said:

That’s a topic for another day.  I’ve been studying how often relievers enter games with runners on base and whether the recent O’s teams are abnormal in that regard.  Not sure I have a clear answer that sorts out the effect of manager decisions vs. the effect of having bad pitchers (= more baserunners).   Will write it up eventually.     Just to tease this a bit, in the Hyde era, relievers have entered with an average of .55-.64 runners on base; in the Buck era it was .45-.50, with 6 seasons at .50 or below.   

Good luck on that tease. Since it's pretty clear Buck's pitchers were better than Hyde's, and thus likely to leave fewer on base, as the data shows. I bet a simple correlation of starter ERA difference, relative to these numbers, would pretty much settle it. Heck, that might even be close to the 4.75 to 6.00 ratio indicated here, straight up.

[wildcard]

I think Elias wants a bunch of hard thrower in the pen like Tampa.   Bautista, Baker, Scott, Lopez, Tate, Tyler Wells fit that mold. Sulser's experience and effectiveness is valued.

[waroriole]

On 12/23/2021 at 5:46 PM, Frobby said:

That’s a topic for another day.  I’ve been studying how often relievers enter games with runners on base and whether the recent O’s teams are abnormal in that regard.  Not sure I have a clear answer that sorts out the effect of manager decisions vs. the effect of having bad pitchers (= more baserunners).   Will write it up eventually.     Just to tease this a bit, in the Hyde era, relievers have entered with an average of .55-.64 runners on base; in the Buck era it was .45-.50, with 6 seasons at .50 or below.   

Isn’t that just because Buck’s teams had fewer runners on base? Because they were actual major league pitchers. 

[Sports Guy]

3 hours ago, wildcard said:

I think Elias wants a bunch of hard thrower in the pen like Tampa.   Bautista, Baker, Scott, Lopez, Tate, Tyler Wells fit that mold. Sulser's experience and effectiveness is valued.

Every bullpen has a bunch of hard throwers.  Again, you are taking this Tampa model stuff too far.

[Frobby]

12 hours ago, now said:

Good luck on that tease. Since it's pretty clear Buck's pitchers were better than Hyde's, and thus likely to leave fewer on base, as the data shows. I bet a simple correlation of starter ERA difference, relative to these numbers, would pretty much settle it. Heck, that might even be close to the 4.75 to 6.00 ratio indicated here, straight up.

 

1 hour ago, waroriole said:

Isn’t that just because Buck’s teams had fewer runners on base? Because they were actual major league pitchers. 

It’s not a perfect correlation.   The lowest ratio of Buck’s tenure was 2016, at .45 inherited barerunners per appearance.  The 2016 rotation was pretty lousy.   The best rotation Buck had was 2014, but that team had .50 inherited baserunners per relief appearance, tied for 5th lowest of Buck’s 8 full seasons.    So, like I said, I’m still studying this.   

[Frobby]

5 hours ago, wildcard said:

I think Elias wants a bunch of hard thrower in the pen like Tampa. 

 

1 hour ago, Sports Guy said:

Every bullpen has a bunch of hard throwers.  Again, you are taking this Tampa model stuff too far.

Tampa’s bullpen was 20th/30 in average bullpen fastball velocity.   So if our plan is to slavishly imitate everything Tampa does, getting harder throwing relievers isn’t the way to do it.  The hardest throwing bullpen was the White Sox at 96.0 mph, Tampa was 20th at 93.7, O’s 24th at 93.5.

https://www.fangraphs.com/leaders.aspx?pos=all&stats=rel&lg=all&qual=0&type=17&season=2021&month=0&season1=2021&ind=0&team=0,ts&rost=0&age=0&filter=&players=0&startdate=&enddate=thanks