I’ve Come Around on 13 Pitchers

[Sports Guy]

I think you can make both work. I think you go 10/11 pitchers by instituting 2 120IP arms in your pen that alternate 2 IP or so every other night. Particularly useful in cases where 1) your SP are young or 2) you have an abundance of SP arms and would like to break in high-ceiling talent (like a Joba Chamberlain or Clayton Kershaw).

Likewise, I think 4 bench can work. If getting Wigginton/Freel five starts a week guarantees Roberts/Mora/Scott have to go 5/6 games a week rather than 6/7 you're saving 15-25 games a season, depending on how you use them. By getting versatile players who can be above-average offensively (wigignton platoon, for example) you are mitigating the hit you'd normally take in resting your starter. You're also helping to make a move like Wigginton worth while by getting him 4-5 starts a week.

Super-UTL with more value than just his versatility is serving essentially the same role as your 120IP in a 10/11 man pen. I don't think one is better than the other -- but each are entirely dependent on being properly executed. MacPhail has done an okay job of at least making the 13 man staff possible. I don't think it's perfect with this personnel, but there seems to be some rhyme and reason. I'm interested to see if this is dictated by the arms or will be an organizational philosophical focus. My guess is the former.

4 man bench is fine...3 man is a bad idea.

[Stotle]

4 man bench is fine...3 man is a bad idea.

This is a mindset and not a reason. 3-man bench is actually feasible provided you have the right personnel. You can say it's not for you, or not your preference, but that doesn't mean it's flat-out wrong. It does mean you can't carry one-trick positional ponies, which goes against what many teams do. I question why you need 13 arms, generally, but you can certainly do it and win in the process.

[mweb]

Although, I think a 13 man pitching staff is dumb, it actually wouldn't upset me if that's what they went with. Granted, many of these pitchers that we are talking about are unlikely to be anything special, but I too feel they could have some value, while we wouldn't be losing anyone on offense that I would care about.

Concerning Baez and Walker, I just don't think it's that realistic to think they'll be cut if they pitch decently in ST.

I also do think guys can get proper rest considering Wigginton and Freel are both very versatile, and quite good for being reserves. Plus, there's a good amount of versatility in the starting lineup.

The key is if Wigginton, Freel, or Mora can play a decent enough SS. I'm skeptical that any of them can though.

[Sports Guy]

Future BP arms:

Bergesen

McCrory

Hoey

JJ

Sherrill

Ray

Liz

Hernandez

Mickolio

Perez

Sarfate

These are just some guys that are either will or could see BP time in the next 2 seasons.

What exactly would we need to keep those guys around for, other than AAA depth, which you can always acquire anyway.

[mweb]

Future BP arms:

Bergesen

McCrory

Hoey

JJ

Sherrill

Ray

Liz

Hernandez

Mickolio

Perez

Sarfate

These are just some guys that are either will or could see BP time in the next 2 seasons.

What exactly would we need to keep those guys around for, other than AAA depth, which you can always acquire anyway.

Well a guy could surprise like Guthrie did, even if it's not that extreme or relegated to the BP, it would still be a nice plus.

[Sports Guy]

Well a guy could surprise like Guthrie did, even if it's not that extreme or relegated to the BP, it would still be a nice plus.

True but I wouldn't bank on any of these guys doing that except MAYBE Simon but even that is unlikely.

[Anonymous]

Although, I think a 13 man pitching staff is dumb, it actually wouldn't upset me if that's what they went with. Granted, many of these pitchers that we are talking about are unlikely to be anything special, but I too feel they could have some value, while we wouldn't be losing anyone on offense that I would care about.

Concerning Baez and Walker, I just don't think it's that realistic to think they'll be cut if they pitch decently in ST.

I also do think guys can get proper rest considering Wigginton and Freel are both very versatile, and quite good for being reserves. Plus, there's a good amount of versatility in the starting lineup.

The key is if Wigginton, Freel, or Mora can play a decent enough SS. I'm skeptical that any of them can though.

So if it could be smart, why then is it dumb? As the Doc said, you're not thinking 4-dimensionally. What may appear "dumb" in an optimize-solely-for-2009 context may ultimately bring added value for 2010 and beyond, which for a team that will more likely compete in the out years strikes me as anything but dumb -- granted that SG will now be ready to strike with the "beyond dumb" label, an occupational hazard of posting on these boards.

[JTrea81]

The bolded, I think, is a wasteful approach that too many teams subscribe too. By carrying versatile players that can also be average producers you take some of the sting out of sitting your starter (granted Freel is not an average producer today, so far as I see). I like Gomez a lot, and prefer him to Freel. I think had Pie been in the fold already than Freel would not have been part of the deal (since Scott/Pie/Jones/Markakis covers your OF fine). It is what it is, at this point, but I wouldn't bring up Gomez without sending down or moving one of Freel, WIgginton. Just redundancy with solid but not outstanding players. That's what versatility is supposed to avoid.

A ML bench is usually comprised of solid not outstanding players. That's why they are on the bench and not starting.

You've got Gomez to back up 2B and SS, Freel can back up the IF corners and 2B but will be primarily the 4th OFer and Wigginton can be the primary backup to the IF corners and at DH vs. LHP. Zaun/Moeller is the backup C.

The Orioles in 1997 had a bench of Jeff Reboulet, Lenny Webster, Tony Tarasco and Pete Incaviglia

[Stotle]

A ML bench is usually comprised of solid not outstanding players. That's why they are on the bench and not starting.

You've got Gomez to back up 2B and SS, Freel can back up the IF corners and 2B but will be primarily the 4th OFer and Wigginton can be the primary backup to the IF corners and at DH vs. LHP. Zaun/Moeller is the backup C.

Scott - DH/4th OF

Gomez - UTL (SS/2B/1B/3B)

Wigginton - DH/UTL (3B/2B/1B)

Zaun - Back-up C

There's a three-man bench that gives you plenty of flexibility on a daily basis and allows you to rest every single starter.

I think you are somewhat confusing a general label (solid vs. outstanding) at the expense of breaking down particular flaws that may prevent an otherwise outstanding player from being a regular.

[JTrea81]

Scott - DH/4th OF

Gomez - UTL (SS/2B/1B/3B)

Wigginton - DH/UTL (3B/2B/1B)

Zaun - Back-up C

There's a three-man bench that gives you plenty of flexibility on a daily basis and allows you to rest every single starter.

I think you are somewhat confusing a general label (solid vs. outstanding) at the expense of breaking down particular flaws that may prevent an otherwise outstanding player from being a regular.

But unless you are DHing the OFer on his day off, you've got to have Wigginton in the lineup as well when Scott is in the OF, taking away options to PH with on your bench.

[Anonymous]

But unless you are DHing the OFer on his day off, you've got to have Wigginton in the lineup as well when Scott is in the OF, taking away options to PH with on your bench.

So if Scott is in the OF, it means that Pie or Jones just got vaporized?

[JTrea81]

So if Scott is in the OF, it means that Pie or Jones just got vaporized?

You might need to PH more than once...

[mweb]

True but I wouldn't bank on any of these guys doing that except MAYBE Simon but even that is unlikely.

Perhaps, although none of us would have guessed Guthrie would have amounted to anything. It's also possible that Penn or Hill could be that 13th guy depending on how they perform, I know you will probably say that would be stupid, but regardless, it's possible.

What if the plan was to start with 13 pitchers, but once one gets hurt or someone shows he just isn't deserving of remaining on the club, then bring up a position player to replace him. That would likely occur rather quickly.

[Sports Guy]

Perhaps, although none of us would have guessed Guthrie would have amounted to anything. It's also possible that Penn or Hill could be that 13th guy depending on how they perform, I know you will probably say that would be stupid, but regardless, it's possible.

What if the plan was to start with 13 pitchers, but once one gets hurt or someone just isn't deserving of remaining on the club, then bring up a position player to replace him. That would likely occur rather quickly.

I think there was definite reliever potential in him as soon as we signed him.

And any plan that calls for 13 pitchers, outside of a day where you have a doubleheader and have used up some arms in the days prior, is a terrible one.

[mweb]

I think there was definite reliever potential in him as soon as we signed him.

And any plan that calls for 13 pitchers, outside of a day where you have a doubleheader and have used up some arms in the days prior, is a terrible one.

Hard to argue with that reasoning.

As I said, I don't like the idea of 13 pitchers either, however we do have more pitchers than hitters who it may make sense to have on the 25 man roster for one reason or another, and we may have the versatility among the position players to make rest a non-issue. If done on a short-term basis like I just mentioned, I don't think it's something to get worked up over.