2018 Brewers 25 Man Roster [Latest: Starting rotation set, post #445]

[pacopete4]

Having a pinch hitter in the 4th but then watching your piggyback partner cost you a scoring chance later in the game? No thank you.

[TJseven7]

Anderson 5.6 ip average. 185 ip, 6 man pen plus guerra/suter on throw day

Davies 5.8 ip average. 191ip, 6 man pen plus woodruff/miley throw day

Chacin 5.6 ip average 180ip, 6 man pen with 2 days of low pen demand upcoming

Woodruff 5/Suter 3-4... 260 ip total.

Guerra 4/Miley 3-5... 240 ip total.

 

402 ip (roughly) left for 6 arms. Anderson has JIC 8 man pen, Davies JIC 8 man pen. Chacin has a short pen but Barnes Jeffress Albers are very unlikely to go either of the next 2 starts.

 

I see long guys get held out of streaks of games all the time because... well what if we need 3ip from them tomorrow. Because of what if and them not being a good option they dont go 100 ips in a year. Structuring it this way gets around tgat. You use the long man... you hold back jeffress and barnes a bit who can go 1 any day and still gut out 2 the next in a bad spot.

 

Honestly... almost majes sense to go

Anderson davies chacin woodruff/suter Guerra/Miley

Knebel hader albers logan jeffress Gallardo.

Option Barnes.

[TJseven7]

Having a pinch hitter in the 4th but then watching your piggyback partner cost you a scoring chance later in the game? No thank you.

 

Vogt perez sogard are a sure thing? All ph ab are in critcal spots? Ph BA is good typically? None of those answers are no.

[FVBrewerFan]

5 things:

 

Piggy back doesn't depleat your bench further. You have 2 guys go 8-9 innings. It actually removes PH attempts. You see one between the 4th and 5th hopefully and then you dont see one until late.

 

The idea of a guy crusing is nonsense. You've all watched enough baseball to see someone average go 4 strong then not finish the 5th.

 

And what if one or both suck? You just throw it out there like "No problem, one guy goes 4, then the next goes 4-5." It will rarely work out that way.

 

Why is the idea of a starter cruising nonsense? Suter had a few starts like that, so did Woodruff. Eva\en 1 out of 2 Wilkerson starts he put up 7 strong innings.

 

The notion of benching someone who's pitching well just because it's time for his piggyback partner to get his innings is just crazy to me. But the bigger question to all this is WHY? What is the advantage? Or put another way, what is the disadvantage to having 5 starters go as long as they can, and have an 8 man BP ready to pick up innings as needed?

[TJseven7]

And don't be niave intentionally. There are many fluid alterations that can be made mid game to this. You go 4ip with guerra and he's due up in 5 batters. No one reaches. You try guerra in the 5th quick hook with jeffress or albers on stand by. If he the rp gets out of the 5th... ph... suter gets 4. Fast forward to the 8th tight game and its a scoring chance with the pitcher up. Short day for suter if hader/knebel are available.

 

If you want every AB off a pitcher... get the DH or find a way to get 30 men on the active roster. 1 way or another they bat. You can't get short innings from starters and pen guys and survive a season.

 

Woodruff over 160 is asking a lot

Suter over 160 is asking a lot

Guerra over 128 is asking a lot

Miley/Yo... guess.

 

You take the best 2 of those and enjoy 72.75 innings from each of the 8 pen guys. Find a way to get the 2 long guys 4 ip per week in the proper spots while avoiding mid game implosions by 2 of 4 guys who can't work deep. You know how that goes... you use the best 4... you sit on your long guys because well... tomorrow we might need them. Tomorrow is never today.

[TJseven7]

5 things:

 

Piggy back doesn't depleat your bench further. You have 2 guys go 8-9 innings. It actually removes PH attempts. You see one between the 4th and 5th hopefully and then you dont see one until late.

 

The idea of a guy crusing is nonsense. You've all watched enough baseball to see someone average go 4 strong then not finish the 5th.

 

And what if one or both suck? You just throw it out there like "No problem, one guy goes 4, then the next goes 4-5." It will rarely work out that way.

 

Why is the idea of a starter cruising nonsense? Suter had a few starts like that, so did Woodruff. Eva\en 1 out of 2 Wilkerson starts he put up 7 strong innings.

 

The notion of benching someone who's pitching well just because it's time for his piggyback partner to get his innings is just crazy to me. But the bigger question to all this is WHY? What is the advantage? Or put another way, what is the disadvantage to having 5 starters go as long as they can, and have an 8 man BP ready to pick up innings as needed?

 

Why? Statistical hedging. He could go 7... and he could also decline the 3rd time through like his stats and just about everyone's stats show. 4 good innings is 4 good innings. It puts you closer to winning but you can't tell me you know if more of that guy or turning it over to the other guy who is positioned to succeed is better. I say "oh they just go 4 then he goes 4 like its simple"... well it places them in the situations where they are statistically successful so yeah simple. Isn't that the whole point of analytics?

 

What if doesn't matter. What could go wrong, anything and everything no matter how you stack it. We could watch Davies get bounced in 2 and play 15 innings only for chacin to get hurt the next day on pitch 1. Disaster is always looming. I care about navigating today, putting people in situations where they are likely to succeed while angling to mitigate future risk (in this case pen stress).

 

We have 5 guys who have potential to be good in roles, and are very unlikely to carry big innings because they haven't done it or aren't good enough to be trusted to do it. We've never been built for this like we are today. You cant expect woodruff or suter to post 180 innings. You cant expect davies anderson chacin to be long start guys. You cant put 70+ ip on every dude in the pen without it running on fumes. You can't waste a bp spot on a guy you hold back in the event tomorrow goes badly. A guy you don't trust to be good, who's only talent is the ability to cover many innings in a L.

 

Position the team to win. Structure for the entire 162. Deal with implosions when they happen.

 

I see all the what if bad things. What about chacin hits the DL... suter gets bumped out of his piggyback, woodruff gets a 1 ip longer leash and suter is ready to jump into chacins next turn. He'd be less prepared for that if he wasn't already semi stretched in his piggyback role.

 

3 starters and 4 guys who can likely handle 4 fairly well. 3 starters and 0 guys you can comfortably expect 5.5+ good ip from. How can we keep 7 starters stretched on the mlb roster, while limiting pen wear, while getting good results? 1 way. 1 way.

 

Cc also stated Peralta Burnes could be up by june. They'd fit in really well in this if say Guerra and Miley didnt work out that well since neither is ready for a huge full season workload.

[coolhandluke121]

Saying you can't pull a guy after 4.2 good innings is a bit like singing a guy who's 32 because he had a good year last year. It flies in the face of all evidence. The best argument for shorter starts and longer relievers is avoiding 3 times through the order. That's an established liability. Pretty much everything else is speculation.

 

You don't run out of pitchers anymore than you did before. You can easily reduce pa's by pitchers - maybe not every game, but definitely over the course of a season. For example, you can PH for your starter in the top of the 5th, do a double switch to move the pitcher down a few spots, and then PH for your first reliever after 2 ip's.

 

That's what it really comes down to. The worst relievers in baseball are often failed starters, yet manage to have respectable e.r.a.'s because they only face a few guys. You could definitely get 2 more innings out of them. This idea that there's no in between, that you can basically either have guys throw 6 innings every 5 days, with ~32 starts a year, or you can give your best relievers 60+ appearances but no more than an inning at a time, is probably just dogma. That can't possibly be the most efficient way to divvy up innings.

 

You could also easily start guys on 3 days rest more often if they're routinely throwing 60-70 pitches. People do that already all the time. Again, what's the evidence for the current dogma? Is there injury data on it? Do pitchers really need that much of a routine? If, so then why do they break the routine in the playoffs? Even travel and the occasional switch between day games and night games would wreak havoc on their routines if they were that susceptible to it. It's a little like the 7th/set-up/closer argument, which is just blatant simple-mindedness and being set in your ways.

[coolhandluke121]

By the way, I'm not advocating a strict, rigid piggyback. That's the same inflexibility that in my opinion makes the current dogma in desperate need of a reboot. But just imagine how much you could manipulate match-ups and pitcher at-bats with more long relievers. It actually kind of boggles my mind that nobody has done it, but I guess you need to have the rep of a LaRussa or Maddon to survive the set-in-their-ways, walked-uphill-to-school-both-ways, knee-jerk reactions you'd get.

[FVBrewerFan]

By the way, I'm not advocating a strict, rigid piggyback. That's the same inflexibility that in my opinion makes the current dogma in desperate need of a reboot. But just imagine how much you could manipulate match-ups and pitcher at-bats with more long relievers. It actually kind of boggles my mind that nobody has done it, but I guess you need to have the rep of a LaRussa or Maddon to survive the set-in-their-ways, walked-uphill-to-school-both-ways, knee-jerk reactions you'd get.

 

I think I basically agree with you and TJ7. I think he wants it a bit more "set" though, and I like the flexibility. But I think we're more or less talking about the same thing. Have multiple guys in the BP who are capable of pitching multiple innings. Does one need to be tied to a starter? I think that hurts the flexibility. Yank a guy after going through the line-up twice? I think it depends on the score, who your facing, lots of things. For some of these young pitchers, the only way they can learn to get better going through a line-up a 3rd and 4th time is to do it.

 

I'm not so sure managers are set in their ways against this, I think it's a matter of finding guys who can do it. In recent years relief pitchers only pitching one inning is the norm, but wasn't all that long ago that wasn't the case.

 

Fun discussion though, beats talking about Cobb for a change!

[TJseven7]

I'm cartainly a bit more rigid with my layout. But its a template idea more than its a set in stone 4-4 etc. Its really set to avoid going more than 2 times through a lineup with sub optimal options while letting young guys test their legs in starter like/semi stretched situations.

 

I don't like the 2ip long man approach because while it allows frequency of use it doesn't prepare them to become starters. I'm not ready to discard the idea of suter starting and I don't feel woodruff can go deep yet. I also dont think burnes peralta or hader could go deep yet so keep that bug in your bonnet.

 

While 2 ip fits PH better... and jeffress barnes suter miley hader could all do it... leaving logan albers knebel as solo guys... it inefficiently puts suter and miley in a 2 ip role when they could go 2 times through. I worry about being in a scenerio where you get 6 from anderson davies and chacin and then look at the pen and want to go albers hader knebel to finish. You wouldnt want to turn it over a close game to the 2 ip guys in that scenerio as often as we'd dream up. If you get more rigid you tie yourself into using these guys in proper spots and sparing the pen.

 

You have to remember if we were to go this route you are fighting against the mental imprint of "this is how its done." The built in lessons a manager will have to actively fight to carry this out properly. The more rigid, the easier that becomes. The goal is to make it easy to get suter over 100ip. The goal is to get a solid 128ip from guerra. The goal is to not overwork woodruff and let him focus on a full years worth of starts not a huge innings spike. Miley being useful. We'd also be set up to kick platoon schemes in the balls. Do you stack lhb vs woody knowing suters on the way? You can't just toggle in your bench in the NL. You need ph options for the last 5 innings. So that plays into the 4-4 schemes favor. So do you force them to avoid platooning? Do you trap them in a platoon? It puts pressure on them which is a positive.

 

I feel like altering away from the rigid template due to high leverage need is the easier route. Even with calling it rigid I expect it to be a fluid adaptation. Guerra allows 3 thru 4... we dont score... suter goes until its a saves opp or its over. 5ip close out in a loss. But pen gets a full rest day. Same in a big lead. And as i said... #4 throw day is anderson start. #5 throw day is Davies start. Chacin start is the tricky one but with a possibility of under 4 pen innings in the next 2 days that can be managed.

[coolhandluke121]

Yeah, protesting that it would be too rigid seems silly considering how inflexible the current dogma is. Almost any of the ideas suggested here have the potential to fix a lot of flaws.

 

What new ones would it create? I don't think swing pitchers and long relievers with irregular schedules have more injury problems, but I could be wrong. It could be that the current practice took shape because it was best for avoiding injury. I doubt it though. Guys pitch on 3 days rest in the playoffs all the time. They come back and pitch in relief after starting a few days earlier. They start on 3 days rest if they didn't throw a lot of pitches in their last start. What's the right balance between appearances and innings per appearance? I know some guys have to be "stretched out" and stuff, but I think it would be hubris to assume the current dogma is correct just because it's tradition. There's tons of evidence that it's flawed.

 

Manipulating match-ups a little more and avoiding a 3rd time through the order is the most important. For example, what's the point of having good left-handed pitchers if you're not taking steps to ensure that they pitch against LHP-dominant lineups more? I always thought pitching a guy like Randy Wolf against a great RHP lineup just because it was his turn in the rotation was the dumbest thing in the world. There has to be a better way. You give Suter 2 ip's in a piggy-back with Guerra on Tuesday and then bring him back Saturday to pitch 4-5 against an LHB-dominant lineup. Stuff like that. It's got a ton of potential. I hope the Brewers try it, and I think they're set up to. They're run by very smart people right now IMO.

[TJseven7]

The bending innings so that the pitchers can lineup against teams they match up against better never even crossed my mind. I was looking at it 1 day at a time matchup wise... as in... they go lhb heavy and our rhp starter might be looking at 3ip so our lefty can ambush the stack... but to shape it based on the upcoming schedule goes into math and scheduling that flies way way over my head.

 

That doesn't mean they can't though.

 

Would that be the first time non-ingame scheming to your opponent would be adopted within the regular season? I mean at least to that level?

[coolhandluke121]

The bending innings so that the pitchers can lineup against teams they match up against better never even crossed my mind. I was looking at it 1 day at a time matchup wise... as in... they go lhb heavy and our rhp starter might be looking at 3ip so our lefty can ambush the stack... but to shape it based on the upcoming schedule goes into math and scheduling that flies way way over my head.

 

That doesn't mean they can't though.

 

Would that be the first time non-ingame scheming to your opponent would be adopted within the regular season? I mean at least to that level?

 

You see a little stuff like that once in a while when a guy misses a turn in the rotation because of a day off or injury. Sometimes you see a team hold off on a guy for a day if there's a better match-up. But not to this extent.

 

The real question is, how necessary is it for most pitchers to have a more predictable schedule? They always say they prefer it, but is it really necessary for preventing injury and maximizing performance? Would they be willing to try it if it looked like it had a chance of improving their stats and the team success? Would you need young guys with something to prove, instead of established veterans with more political clout?

[FVBrewerFan]

Routine is always the biggest issue for SP. They do certain things each day between starts, and that has an effect both mentally and physically. If they're not sure when they'll start, or it constantly changes, that could be an issue.

 

Part of the problem would be if a pitcher has a bad performance. Is it because his schedule was messed with? That's impossible to prove, putting the manager in a tough position. Plus, the Brewers aren't likely to even have any LH starters to even try this experiment.

[coolhandluke121]

Routine is always the biggest issue for SP. They do certain things each day between starts, and that has an effect both mentally and physically. If they're not sure when they'll start, or it constantly changes, that could be an issue.

 

Part of the problem would be if a pitcher has a bad performance. Is it because his schedule was messed with? That's impossible to prove, putting the manager in a tough position. Plus, the Brewers aren't likely to even have any LH starters to even try this experiment.

 

That's the main thing. I would like to see data on swing men and long relievers and try to figure out how much it affects them when they have less regularity. We've seen guys like Suter and Estrada do it very successfully here though. If anything, I'd be willing to be that the data shows them being more effective precisely because they face less batters on a regular basis, even though they can't rely on the same routine as starters.

 

It's like the whole 7th/8th/closer thing. I'm a little skeptical that they need that level of routine to be effective. If anything, I think they'd be a lot better off if their appearances depended on match-ups and rest rather than innings. If you have 3 save situations in a row, why go to your closer for each one? Why stick with your 7th-inning guy even if he's an LHP facing 3 dominant RHB's in the 7th? Roenicke was a player's manager who did that stuff all the time. Remember the Kameron Loe in the 7th era? Remember when K-Rod was dominant before the ASB in 2014 but was pitching nearly every other day and once tried to save a game 4 days in a row? It's* mind-numbingly stupid for relievers IMO, but I think it's questionable for starters too.

 

*ETA: Referring to the dogma on routine. If pitchers won't do it, find someone who will and show how it makes them better than expected. Then the established guys will be under more pressure to do it.

[Fear The Chorizo]

I think the concept of having one of the 5 rotation spots being a piggy-back / bullpen game makes sense for a pitching staff like what the Brewers may break camp with - their pen will likely have 2-3 guys capable of being long relievers based on career experience starting, and without Nelson or a FA starter brought in, the #5 spot will likely be filled by a guy like Miley or Guerra. As the brewer rotation currently is shaping up, they will have multiple starters who can't be consistently relied upon to go more than 6 IP - they will need 2-3 arms in the pen who can give them multiple innings, and not just during games that are blowouts. They will need the combination of Suter, Miley, Guerra, Woodruff, Wilkerson, Yo, etc to cover rotation spots #4-5 and provide two long relief options. I wouldn't call it a hard piggyback situation, but they will have enough versatility to shift starters based on matchups and who's well-rested while not needing to worry so much about a typical #5 starter's routine. That said, I still think it's a bad idea to do over an entire season - I see this as a stop gap measure until Nelson returns, one of these options establishes themselves as the best starting option, and/or a FA starter is signed and ready to go.

 

We've got to remember, the 5 Brewer starters to open the 2017 season were Guerra, Davies, Wily Peralta, Anderson, and Millone - teams that think their rotation is solid and set when they break camp with little/no depth are asking for pitching woes down the road as inevitable injuries crop up (see Cubs - 2018 version). This year's Cub rotation is a talented #1-5 with the addition of Darvish - however, aside from shifting Montgomery back to a starting role, they're going to have little/no depth that even resembles MLB-caliber beyond their opening day rotation. I see them struggling to be players at the trade deadline for starting pitching due to a complete dearth of prospect talent in their system now, too. They will pitch poorly at times this year because injuries will force them to use bad starting pitchers. If they suffer a couple injuries that are major, their team could be looking at a Red Sox-like dropoff for the season, similar to some of the down years that team had with Theo at the helm between WS titles after he obliterated that organization's depth in search of bolstering talent on the 25-man gameday roster.

[kalle8]

in my opinion it's not a problem of routines, it's more a problem of mental energy. Knowing the exact day and time you will get to pitch reduces the amount of mental energy consumed. In a run of 6 months that is relevant.

 

this problem could be reduced by everyday confrontation and communication between Manager, coaches and pitchers but surely not completaly avoided.

[coolhandluke121]

I think the concept of having one of the 5 rotation spots being a piggy-back / bullpen game makes sense for a pitching staff like what the Brewers may break camp with - their pen will likely have 2-3 guys capable of being long relievers based on career experience starting, and without Nelson or a FA starter brought in, the #5 spot will likely be filled by a guy like Miley or Guerra. As the brewer rotation currently is shaping up, they will have multiple starters who can't be consistently relied upon to go more than 6 IP - they will need 2-3 arms in the pen who can give them multiple innings, and not just during games that are blowouts. They will need the combination of Suter, Miley, Guerra, Woodruff, Wilkerson, Yo, etc to cover rotation spots #4-5 and provide two long relief options. I wouldn't call it a hard piggyback situation, but they will have enough versatility to shift starters based on matchups and who's well-rested while not needing to worry so much about a typical #5 starter's routine. That said, I still think it's a bad idea to do over an entire season - I see this as a stop gap measure until Nelson returns, one of these options establishes themselves as the best starting option, and/or a FA starter is signed and ready to go.

 

 

But Nelson will probably have to work his way back slowly, while Suter and Woodruff will be on a developmentally-based innings limit and Guerra/Gallardo/Miley will be on a decline-related limit. Before you know it, you'll have September call-ups and be able to do what they did last year. The quality pitching they got last September was a testament for how much you can compensate for pitching deficiencies by getting creative and prolific with your bullpen.

 

Just to add to your reasons the Brewers could do this, don't underestimate the critical role versatile position players and platoons would have in all of this. The Brewers have that in spades. Making double-switches and moving the pitcher's spot in the order is what could allow them to pull a starter for his second plate appearance and use a long reliever for 3 innings without him coming to the plate. That adds up to a much better lineup over the course of the season.

[FVBrewerFan]

Routine is always the biggest issue for SP. They do certain things each day between starts, and that has an effect both mentally and physically. If they're not sure when they'll start, or it constantly changes, that could be an issue.

 

Part of the problem would be if a pitcher has a bad performance. Is it because his schedule was messed with? That's impossible to prove, putting the manager in a tough position. Plus, the Brewers aren't likely to even have any LH starters to even try this experiment.

 

It's like the whole 7th/8th/closer thing. I'm a little skeptical that they need that level of routine to be effective. If anything, I think they'd be a lot better off if their appearances depended on match-ups and rest rather than innings. If you have 3 save situations in a row, why go to your closer for each one? Why stick with your 7th-inning guy even if he's an LHP facing 3 dominant RHB's in the 7th? Roenicke was a player's manager who did that stuff all the time. Remember the Kameron Loe in the 7th era? Remember when K-Rod was dominant before the ASB in 2014 but was pitching nearly every other day and once tried to save a game 4 days in a row? It's* mind-numbingly stupid for relievers IMO, but I think it's questionable for starters too.

 

 

Yea, and I think that's an area where the Brewers are already a little flexible with, and hopefully we'll see more of it this year. For example, if Hader rolls through the 8th, why not let him finish the game at times. Depends on his workload in recent days, as well as Knebel. Also depends on LH or RH dominated line-up in the 9th, etc. But there should be times this makes perfect sense. Another example, you may have a game where Williams can pitch the 7th/8th instead of using the set-up man every time the book says you should.

 

Like I said, just based ona couple things I saw last year, a few comments I've heard from CC and DS, I think they're open to some of these things. We'll soon find out!

[coolhandluke121]

 

Yea, and I think that's an area where the Brewers are already a little flexible with, and hopefully we'll see more of it this year. For example, if Hader rolls through the 8th, why not let him finish the game at times. Depends on his workload in recent days, as well as Knebel. Also depends on LH or RH dominated line-up in the 9th, etc. But there should be times this makes perfect sense. Another example, you may have a game where Williams can pitch the 7th/8th instead of using the set-up man every time the book says you should.

 

Like I said, just based ona couple things I saw last year, a few comments I've heard from CC and DS, I think they're open to some of these things. We'll soon find out!

 

Yep. I really love the people running this team. I think they could be the San Antonio Spurs of baseball. I wouldn't put Counsell up there with Popovich, but Counsell + Stearns + Johnson et al, as a package deal, could be up there with the Spurs' team. I think Counsell did a great job most of last year but struggled towards the end due to lack of options and desperation. Stearns is obviously money. And they seem to be building around underrated guys who do all the little things well, with the team identity being more important than the individual.

 

For people still resistant to my idea of a little more piggy-backing and long relief, with more starters pulled before their second plate appearance, all I'm saying is that some of what FVBrewerFan mentions above could apply to starters as well.

 

Put it this way: starters need a routine if they're going to throw 100 pitches in 6+ innings. So how did we come to the conclusion that the answer is to always give them that routine, instead of deciding they should throw less than 100 pitches and go ~4-5 innings? Are we so allergic to the concept of long relief that we can't even try it? Are we sure it's not just a self-fulfilling prophecy, where the worst pitchers are long relievers by default and that's why we say it wouldn't work?

[markedman5]

Looks like Guerra now has an option left

 

[KeithStone53151]

Looks like Guerra now has an option left

 

 

I saw that too. That's a game changer in my opinion, I'd go as far as to say it's likely that Guerra opens in AAA rotation now.

[pacopete4]

Looks like Guerra now has an option left

 

 

I saw that too. That's a game changer in my opinion, I'd go as far as to say it's likely that Guerra opens in AAA rotation now.

 

Anderson

Davies

Chacin

Miley

Gallardo

 

Look more likely by the day.

[markedman5]

Gallardo isn't going to be in the rotation if he doesn't start showing something soon.

 

They will go with Suter

[pacopete4]

Gallardo isn't going to be in the rotation if he doesn't start showing something soon.

 

They will go with Suter

They might but I don't think they want to go with Suter. I think Stearns and Counsell see him as that long relief stud for this bullpen.