Rotation battle

[TooLiveBrew]

Quit fooling around with him, he's taking innings away from guys that should be looked at and evaluated in this environment. Even if he was buried in the bullpen, what point is there in wasting a roster spot on a guy who should only see action in blowout losses.

I wholeheartedly agree with the first sentence -- it's my main problem with this situation right now. However, I would like to see if he could help in the bullpen for mop-up duty (someone's got to do it), and spot-starting/SP depth. Would it be realistic to think Soup could stay stretched out with bullpen sessions and/or simulated games? If he'd be on mop-up patrol, he wouldn't exactly be getting regular work.

[Menace II Sobriety]

Just like last year we can run anybody out there and they will be better than Suppan except all those guys sucked. It isn't as easy to replace Suppan as you make it sound.

 

 

Except last year Parra was counted on to be the 2 and this year he is fighting for a spot. Davis, Wolf, and the performance of Narveson since last August has greatly improved this teams depth. The depth this year is much greater than last year. LAst year even Yo was a little bit on an unknown at the 1 coming off of that injury. It just seems odd that 2 guys are fighting for the 4 spot while the 5 is set.

 

I agree that it will be hard to get anyone to pick up anything for Suppan but if we can get someone to cover 2 million of his salary , I say we ditch him. Washburn and the other unsigned pitchers will still be asking for more than that so he could make sense to someone at an extremely reduced rate.

[logan82]

Gallardo, Wolf, Davis, Parra, Bush, and Narveson isn't enough to get us through the year. That's only 6 guys. We probably need at least 8 or 9 guys. Our AAA rotation is full of unknowns and guys who are just bad.

[logan82]

guys who are just bad.

 

So how is that any different than Suppan?

Worse than Suppan.

[trwi7]

guys who are just bad.

 

So how is that any different than Suppan?

[JohnBriggs12]

Gallardo, Wolf, Davis, Parra, Bush, and Narveson isn't enough to get us through the year. That's only 6 guys. We probably need at least 8 or 9 guys. Our AAA rotation is full of unknowns and guys who are just bad.

Any team that gets down to it's 8th or 9th starter is in trouble. You don't win a pennant by having the best 7th, 8th and 9th starting pitcher. If this team is going to win it needs 200+ quality innings from Gallardo, Wolf and Davis. If one or two of those guys go down, it won't matter. Forget the AAA for a minute too. Rivas, Rodgers, are probably ahead of all but one or two guys at AAA anyway.

[logan82]

Rivas, Rodgers, are probably ahead of all but one or two guys at AAA

anyway.

 

No way I would want to rely on a guy who has never pitched above A+ and a guy who couldn't go more than a couple innings at a time last year. If those are the best we can do, there is no way we should get rid of Suppan.

 

Any team that gets down to it's 8th or 9th starter is in trouble. You

don't win a pennant by having the best 7th, 8th and 9th starting

pitcher.

 

Do you mean teams like the Phillies who went through 12 starting pitchers last year? or are you referring to the Yankees who went through 9?

[BrewCrewForever]

Basically Suppan goes out there with nothing. He has nothing, every once in awhile he can get by with smoke and mirrors and maybe get through 5 inning without getting shelled. He stinks. I just beg Doug Melvin to cut his losses and eat that $12 mill. It is just 1 year and it is off the books. I just can't take another year of watching Soup go out there and stink up the joint and then make excuses after the game.

[Menace II Sobriety]

Rivas, Rodgers, are probably ahead of all but one or two guys at AAA

anyway.

 

No way I would want to rely on a guy who has never pitched above A+ and a guy who couldn't go more than a couple innings at a time last year. If those are the best we can do, there is no way we should get rid of Suppan.

 

Any team that gets down to it's 8th or 9th starter is in trouble. You

don't win a pennant by having the best 7th, 8th and 9th starting

pitcher.

 

Do you mean teams like the Phillies who went through 12 starting pitchers last year? or are you referring to the Yankees who went through 9?

It seems as though your mind is made up so it is barely worth debating

this with you but a tremendous upgrade in the depth of the top 3 starting pitchers this year. If fact people think that so much depth is on this roster that one of the starters will be cut or traded. This was not the case last year and pointing out a spot start here and there by 2 teams that had playoff spots locked up a month in advance doesn't prove your point about the Brewers squad this year. It also doesn't include the fact that the Crew could very easily trade for a starter at the deadline. Also to negate Rivas, Rogers, Capuano, Butler, or even Mike Jones is kind off in my opinion . I am not saying that all of them are going to be productive but there is a chance that one of them could easily come up and be league average.

 

Pointing out that a team used x number of starters through a season has no effect on the playoffs when they go down to 3 starters and both of those teams had top offenses.

 

To be more precise 4 of those Yankees starters totaled 26 games (http://en.wikipedia.org/w...k_Yankees_season), and 5 of the Phillies starters totaled 20 starts. If you add Pedro it is 29 and 6, not including the Cliff Lee trade where he got twelve starts making him #7 of your 12. Obviously the Phillies knew their rotation sucked and went out and got 2 new starters. These teams were obviously searching for a way to upgrade their 5.

[BrewCrewForever]

Just to make things perfectly clear(or at least clearer) I would go with

 

Rotation

Gallardo

Wolf

Bush

Davis

Parra

 

Bullpen

Hoffman

Hawkins

Coffey

Narveson

Suppan

Stetter

Vargas

I would be fine with this, I just don't think they will carry Suppan in the pen. That is why I say cut the fat! See ya later Soup!

[logan82]

Also to negate Rivas, Rogers, Capuano, Butler, or even Mike Jones is kind off in my opinion . I am not saying that all of them are going to be productive but there is a chance that one of them could easily come up and be league average.

 

Of course there is a possibility one of those guys could be good. There is also the possibility that all would fall flat in the majors. Rivas hasn't pitched above A+. Same with Rogers plus he was on an innings limit so we don't know if he could start. Capuano is the only one with any success at the MLB level and he is coming off of a 2nd Tommy John surgery so again we don't even know if he can pitch starter innings. Butler may be a possibility when he starts pitching again. Jones' BB rate doesn't exactly inspire confidence either. Like I said earlier, lots of unknowns in the minors. If one of those guys proves anything, then it is just as easy to cut Suppan a month or 3 in as it is to cut him now. I understand that people are upset with Suppan and he isn't a very good pitcher. There are however no pitchers who are clearly better. Yes almost all the pitchers have better stuff but as we witnessed last year with Parra, stuff doesn't equal results. I prefer to hedge my bet and keep Suppan around until one of those other guys shows something.

[Ennder]

Any team that gets down to it's 8th or 9th starter is in trouble. You don't win a pennant by having the best 7th, 8th and 9th starting pitcher. If this team is going to win it needs 200+ quality innings from Gallardo, Wolf and Davis

 

It is very rare for a major league team not to use at least 8 different starters in a year. When you have a roster that is a marginal playoff roster at best every little bit can make a difference.

 

These comments on how useless Suppan is are the same ones people made after his rough start last year when he came out and posted a 12.91 ERA over his first 2 starts. After that he settled down into a pedestrian 4.90 ERA the rest of the way which is more like expectations and pretty much in line with 2008. I suspect Suppan is something like a 4.80-5.20 true talent starter at this point which sounds terrible but still could be useful as a fill in starter late in the season. I don't think we should just release him but at this point he shouldn't be one of the starting 5 given how spring has shaken out.

[pete]

Who was a good 8th or 9th starter used last year? Where was Chad Gaudin in the pecking order with the Yankees? I don't think it makes sense to waste a roster spot on a guy to sit in the bullpen and wait for injuries to make him needed, probably around the middle or end of the season.

[yount19.u]

Leaving Suppan in the rotation, or moving him to the bullpen, actually weakens the team's depth. It would mean they would lose either Bush or Narverson as starters and possibly all together. And it would likely force out a productive member of the bullpen like Stetter or Villanueva to make room for the 6th starter, whether it be Suppan or someone else. I think the only choice the team has is to try and send Suppan to AAA and hope he accepts the assignment. If he doesn't, maybe another team will pick him up for close to league minimum, allowing the team at least a little salary relief. I've always been a bit easier on Suppan than most, but it's clear that he offers nothing better than any of the pitchers fighting for a roster spot at this time. It's best to rip the band aid off quickly.

[EbbaStClaire]

yount19[/b]]Leaving Suppan in the rotation, or moving him to the bullpen, actually weakens the team's depth. It would mean they would lose either Bush or Narverson as starters and possibly all together. And it would likely force out a productive member of the bullpen like Stetter or Villanueva to make room for the 6th starter, whether it be Suppan or someone else. I think the only choice the team has is to try and send Suppan to AAA and hope he accepts the assignment. If he doesn't, maybe another team will pick him up for close to league minimum, allowing the team at least a little salary relief. I've always been a bit easier on Suppan than most, but it's clear that he offers nothing better than any of the pitchers fighting for a roster spot at this time. It's best to rip the band aid off quickly.

Leaving Suppan in the rotation does weaken the teams depth. But Villanueva would not be much of a loss. In my opinion the loss would be Axford because he is already better than CV. Villanueva should be in Nashville trying to find a way to keep his fastball in the lower quarter of the strike zone. Until he can do that he is not a major league pitcher. In fact if he does keep his pitches down he might still be an effective starter.

 

 

[monty57]

It is very rare for a major league team not to use at least 8 different starters in a year. When you have a roster that is a marginal playoff roster at best every little bit can make a difference.

 

I agree, but there is a big difference between a team that has their starters stay relatively healthy and only need spot starts by 3 or 4 others vs a team that has three of it's starters go down for a significant period of time, with a large number of starts going to the 6th, 7th, 8th and 9th starters.

 

If we remain relatively healthy (who knows what will happen), we may lose out by having a converted starter in the pen vs having a "proven" reliever. If you go the Yost method of putting a "long man" in the pen who only pitches when you are up or down by 5+ runs, it puts additional strain on the rest of the pen, as they are effectively one man short. Do that with two spots in the pen, and assuming Hoffman is only going to pitch in save situations and Stetter is going to be mainly there for tough lefty situations, and you are going to have a lot of outings by Coffey, Hawkins and Vargas.

 

Now, if you use the two "losers" of the Suppan/Narveson/Bush/Narveson battle in a more "traditional" bullpen role, then they will not be stretched out if someone goes down, much like Villaneuva and McClung last year. Therefore, if someone is out for a start or two, we will need to go to AAA to get a starter anyways. The only way a non-stretched-out-former-starter will get stretched out is if someone goes down for a siginificant period of time. In this case, Suppan/Parra/Narveson/Bush would go an outing or two with a limited pitch count before they would be able to go over 3-4 innings. So, the "insurance" you're getting by keeping the two "losers" in the pen really only goes into effect if two of our starters go down with significant injuries at the same time. The premium you're paying for this "insurance" is likely a worse bullpen than you would have if you keep someone like Villy or Axford in the pen over Suppan or Bush.

 

Throw in that players are probably better in a role they're used to, meaning Suppan, Bush and Parra could completely flop if placed in the bullpen, and we very well could be in better shape for the long haul if we divest ourselves of Suppan or Bush and keep a more traditional reliever in the pen to start the season.

[Diskono]

I understand that people are upset with Suppan and he isn't a very good pitcher. There are however no pitchers who are clearly better. Yes almost all the pitchers have better stuff but as we witnessed last year with Parra, stuff doesn't equal results. I prefer to hedge my bet and keep Suppan around until one of those other guys shows something.

You seem to think that Suppan is above replacement level, or maybe even above average. You're probably the only one who feels that way, and that's why people are arguing with you. I'd bet that 90% of this forum feel that Suppan is below replacement level - by definition, that means that any AAA scrub will be better. So based on everyone else's opinion of Suppan, even though nobody has "proven" themselves to be better (only due to not having had a chance, nothing else), there are a ton of guys who most likely are.

[endaround]

Suppan is about replacement level. But that puts him ahead of the other options the Brewers have in house. And Villaneuva is buried on teh bullpen depth chart right now. Sending him down to AAA gives another starting option. At some point in the season it might make sense to waive Suppan but why do it now?

[BrewCrewForever]

I guess I am okay keeping Suppan as long as it is not at the cost of Parra, Bush or Narveson.

[TheCrew07]

I think the issue is pretty simple, if keeping Suppan in any capacity means letting a better pitcher walk, then you let Suppan go. For me the issue comes down to Bush vs Suppan as they each only have a 1 year of team control left, I think Bush is the better pitcher of the 2, so that's why I'd make the decision to punt Suppan.

 

I grow weary of the conversations about "depth". No one is paying their 5th starter or their long man in the pen over 12 million per year. I read all the same arguments last year when Green and Wright were acquired even though they were no better than what already had in the minors. Let's be realistic here, does a half a run of ERA really make a difference in the game? Are the Brewers going to win with a 5.5 ERA vs 6.0 ERA more regularly? I highly doubt it, in fact I think the team's record would be very similar with either pitcher on the mound.

 

The difference between this year and last is simple, our projectable arms in the minors have advanced another level and are in position where we will have very capable pitching at both AAA and AA this season. We don't need our 8th or 9th pitchers to make 20 starts for the MLB team if we go down that far, we're only talking about 2-4 starts for those guys... a month's worth of starts, and any of those starters can give us that. Will it be above mythical replacement level? Who knows. But those players are our future, and I'd rather give them a shot and let them get their feet wet than waste a roster spot keeping Suppan around for depth.

 

Every year it's the same empty argument against prospects... well they haven't proven anything yet so how can we count on them? How exactly do they get a chance to prove themselves if they are never given a shot? I'd much rather keep the focus on our talent and the future than concentrate on depth because someone has proven something in the past. A guy like Rivas or Butler might come up and fail at first, but then again he might come up and never go back down, we just don't know. I'd rather err on the side of talent when it comes to depth, especially for the limited number of innings we're talking about. We'll have plenty of pitchers between AA and AAA that have the added potential to miss bats and yet give us a similar GB/FB ratio to Suppan.

[Flood Pants]

You seem to think that Suppan is above replacement level, or maybe even above average. You're probably the only one who feels that way, and that's why people are arguing with you. I'd bet that 90% of this forum feel that Suppan is below replacement level - by definition, that means that any AAA scrub will be better. So based on everyone else's opinion of Suppan, even though nobody has "proven" themselves to be better (only due to not having had a chance, nothing else), there are a ton of guys who most likely are.

If we're going to talk replacement level, let's look at the stats that tell us what replacement level is. Last year, Suppan's VORP was -8.2. Let's compare that, though, to Bush's -14.8 and Parra's -23.9. Looper wasn't much better, at -5. There seems to be the idea that Suppan was our worst pitcher last year, but the numbers simply don't back that up. That doesn't make him good. He was still bad. But only Gallardo was clearly better last year, and we can't say with authority that Bush, Parra, or Narveson will outperform him based on the numbers.

 

I will say though, that if he's pitching for a spot in the rotation right now, he's sure not making a very convincing case for himself.

[Funketown]

What is used to calculate VORP? I have my doubts that Bush and Parra were that far below replacement level last year.

 

I'd peg Suppan for the pen at this point, with Gallardo, Wolf, Davis, Parra, Narveson rounding out the rotation. I think the Brewers would be wise to take the gamble on Parra and Narveson, given their current position in the division. With absolutely nothing to back it up, I'd say there's probably a 90% chance of Suppan being between -1 and 1.5 WAR next year, Bush a 90% chance of being between -1 and 2 WAR. Parra I'd give a 90% shot at being between -2 and 4 WAR, and Narveson a 90% shot at being between -1 and 3 WAR.

 

I think it's a gamble that's well worth taking.

[monty57]

I'd bet that if Bush doesn't take a screaming liner off his pitching arm again this year, effectively turning his tricep into mashed potatos, he'll be significantly better than he showed last season. Parra's a question mark because his problems seem mental. If he learns to trust his stuff, he could be dominant, and we still have him for several years, so I wouldn't give up on him. Narveson seems to be the best of the bunch at this moment, and we have him under control for a long time, so I'd be really upset if we dump him.

 

I'm in the Bush vs. Suppan camp, which TheCrew07 described very well a few posts up. We could save some money by dropping Bush, but if he is clearly the better pitcher, I really hope the Brewers choose the extra talent over a few million dollars. Suppan's abilities are diminishing (and he never had dominant stuff) and his body seems to be wearing down, as he was brought in because he never got injured, and he's been injured each of the past two seasons. To me, it seems that if it is truly based on who is likely to be the better pitcher this season, it's a pretty obvious choice that it would be Bush. The question is whether he will be $3-4MM better than Suppan, as that is the money the Brewers could save by getting rid of Bush, while Suppan is a sunk cost.

[thebruce44]

If we're going to talk replacement level, let's look at the stats that tell us what replacement level is. Last year, Suppan's VORP was -8.2. Let's compare that, though, to Bush's -14.8 and Parra's -23.9. Looper wasn't much better, at -5. There seems to be the idea that Suppan was our worst pitcher last year, but the numbers simply don't back that up. That doesn't make him good. He was still bad. But only Gallardo was clearly better last year, and we can't say with authority that Bush, Parra, or Narveson will outperform him based on the numbers.

 

I will say though, that if he's pitching for a spot in the rotation right now, he's sure not making a very convincing case for himself.

The problem with looking at their VORP or WAR is that those are counting stats. Typically when a player is performing at a rate near or below replacement level he won't be given the opportunity to compile a lot of negative value. Therefor, in my opinion, simply looking at players VORPs or WARs when they are near replacement level is extremely flawed. In addition, you are looking at a relatively small sample size, especially for Bush.

 

A rate stat such as xFIP (while still flawed) will probably provide more insight into how sucky those pitchers in question were last year.

 

Player: xFIP

Para: 4.64

Bush: 4.79

Looper: 4.87

Soup: 5.26

 

Granted, someone like Ruz could probably provide a lot better statistical analysis, but I think some simple conclusions can be drawn here.

 

I think a replacement level xFIP for the NL is around 5.25. So last year, even with Bush's injury, and Parra's absurdly unlucky BABIP and mental issues caused by that, both were still significantly better than Soup. In addition, going forward I would expect Soup to be the only starter on this team to perform below replacement level.

[logan82]

You seem to think that Suppan is above replacement level, or maybe even above average. You're probably the only one who feels that way, and that's why people are arguing with you. I'd bet that 90% of this forum feel that Suppan is below replacement level - by definition, that means that any AAA scrub will be better. So based on everyone else's opinion of Suppan, even though nobody has "proven" themselves to be better (only due to not having had a chance, nothing else), there are a ton of guys who most likely are.

 

No, I know Suppan has been below replacement level. Replacement level is pretty arbitrary though and it ignores the fact that some pitchers get hit harder than others.(I believe it is FIP based and all FIP looks at is HR, BB and K) Even if Suppan was the worst pitcher according to WAR that doesn't mean that anybody would be better. Parra had a better WAR but I wouldn't say he pitched better last year than Suppan. If he did, it was by a very small amount, not the 1.3 wins WAR says which would have been closer to 2 wins if both had pitched close to a full season.

 

WAR in and of itself is a terrible argument. In theory if a player below replacement level we should be able to bring in any AAA and get better results. Reality doesn't bear that out though. In my opinion WAR for pitchers needs to be more results based and a rate stat if you want to use it to compare 2 players. We don't to use luck neutral stats for hitters.

 

I would use FIP if I wanted to look at future potential, but not much else. Parra, for example, is the type of pitcher who has through his MLB always had a lower FIP than ERA because he gets hit harder than the average pitcher. If he can stop throwing easy to hit pitches he has the potential to be much better.

 

Every year it's the same empty argument against prospects... well they haven't proven anything yet so how can we count on them? How exactly do they get a chance to prove themselves if they are never given a shot?

 

Do something at AA or above. Give them half a season to show what they can do at AA or above, if they are pitching well halfway through the season, cut Suppan.