Starting our relief pitchers -- doing the Tampa shuffle

[ebmackenzie]

http://www.espn.com/mlb/story/_/id/23558800/tampa-bay-rays-forefront-rotation-revolution

 

I could easily see MKE and CC doing this with a RHP vs an all righty lineup when Suter was scheduled to start.

I am not sure you would want to take Chase or others out of their normal rhythm but it is interesting to totally be in control of matchups in the highest scoring inning when the game is almost always tied.

[adambr2]

I can see the merit. It's a good way to throw off an opposing lineup that has been designed to see a certain starter. I think this could work with Williams early against a righty heavy lineup or Jennings against a lefty heavy lineup. And you'd probably have an opportunity early on to PH for the pitcher if you had a scoring opportunity, basically giving you a DH for the first few innings. And naturally you could get deeper games out of your starters.

 

With that said, I don't see the Brewers trying this in the near future. There's risk involved, especially when you're messing with what has already been an extremely successful approach with this pen. Tampa is in a much better position than us to be experimenting. And I think we're already being fairly innovative in the pen in our own ways with basically a 3 headed monster at closer of guys we feel comfortable bringing it at any time and in any situation. That's good enough for us right now.

[long ball]

I could see the Brewers doing it down the stretch run. I wouldn't burn Hader, Knebel or maybe Jeffress on a game that Suter/Woodruff/etc may let get away from them though.

 

Not having Suter face the top of the line up 2x while facing the bottom of the line up 3x would be quite advantageous and possibly grind out an additional effective inning from him.

[Fear The Chorizo]

The Brewers' staff isn't set up that well for them to want to attempt this - Tampa has the "luxury" of tinkering because they are pretty much going with 4 starters and a bullpen mob day as their 5th starter all season. The Brewers, when and if they all get healthy, have a pile of mid to back of rotation starters that can't all be on the MLB roster at once. Instead of opening games with one of their late inning relief options, I could see the Brewers trying a few piggy back-type games - especially after rosters can expand in September and the Brewers could have the luxury of running a ton of MLB-capable arms into games.

[SomewhereInTime]

This is awesome, I've been saying it for years that this is exactly what more teams should be doing. The only reason it made sense in the past for your best pitchers to be starters and for them to start the game is that they could often cover most if not all of the game, if not you go to your best reliever for the last inning or so and that's it.

 

If you're the Brewers of today and a starter almost always pitches between 4 and 6 innings no matter the pitch count and no matter how they're doing, why not use one of these dominant relievers to start the first inning or two? You will maximize the probability of scoring first and you can still save Hader or Knebal for the last inning or two.

 

With the continued evolution of bullpen use in baseball, this is the final step toward optimization.

[ebmackenzie]

I get that we don't want to mess with success. We are doing well right now by maximizing our cheap starters and our talented and deep pen.

 

However, Suter looks to be going every 5th start and RHB are hitting him for over .870 OPS overall...not even the second or third time through the lineup. Taylor Williams has RHB hitting .470 OPS (lefties are killing him over 1 OPS) off of him.

 

Given theses stats...opening with TWill and bringing in Suter if you KNEW the lineup was predominately RHB is a no-brainer for several reasons. Taylor has starting experience and Suter has BP experience. You are taking your 5th starter and your last reliever and putting them in the best situation to win and possibly get to the 7th in good shape. Furthermore, this leaves better relievers to back up the better performances of the better starters.

 

Even if they failed and another arm had to be used early...there is a good chance that those two were going to provide that if Suter started and TWill came next. At least this way, you are using the opposition's lineup against them and putting your stats to best use. Yes, you have to juggle your BP before and after but that is why you are carrying 7 and 8 arms at a time in the pen.

 

I would love to see this if the opponent provided the lineup.

[liveforoctober]

Before the season started we had a discussion going about piggyback starting and I think that discussion is relevant here. As a few have mentioned, Suter seems to be a great candidate for this option. In the hypothetical another poster used above... if you give Taylor Williams the start.. you can force the hand of the opposing manager to put his left handed lineup in.. bringing in Brent then after the 1st or 2nd then gives him plenty of favorable matchups or makes the opposing manager burn his bench early.

 

I don't hate the idea at all.

[Fear The Chorizo]

Before the season started we had a discussion going about piggyback starting and I think that discussion is relevant here. As a few have mentioned, Suter seems to be a great candidate for this option. In the hypothetical another poster used above... if you give Taylor Williams the start.. you can force the hand of the opposing manager to put his left handed lineup in.. bringing in Brent then after the 1st or 2nd then gives him plenty of favorable matchups or makes the opposing manager burn his bench early.

 

I don't hate the idea at all.

 

I dont think starting a reliever forces an opposing manager to shift his lineup at all...and most teams have a combo of right and lefty hitters through the first few batters amongst their best hitters, which negates a platoon advantage that could be gained by opening the inning with a reliever. In this scenario, what happens when a reliever opening a game struggles? Are the presumed starters warming up early enough to get brought in quickly, or do they need to burn a 2nd pen arm to try and escape a jam? This could just as easily lead to burning a bullpen up quickly for a game, and if it's tight in the late innings forcing managers to leave guys in too long or not play matchups due to lack of options.

 

I get that in theory it seems like it should work, but two romo appearances against a righty heavy angels lineup in mid may isn't the definitive proof that's where baseball is headed. I also think the presumed advantage of knowing an opposing lineup and then starting a game with a reliever based on the best matchup will be nipped in the bud - I think once lineups are posted, if a player or pitcher gets scratched before gametime they are done. Romo was basically the announced starter because they knew the Angels really didn't have LH options to put at the top of the order. Since ohtani wasn't going to be in the lineup sat or sun due to his pitching schedule, the angels had only valbuena and Calhoun as lh options on their whole roster, neither of which is an everyday option anywhere near the top of the lineup.

[JohnBriggs12]

As long as the rotation keeps putting up zeroes early in games allowing the offense to take leads into the 6th inning, why mess with that?

[Mr Southpaw]

If Woodruff starts tomorrow, we have all for starters being right handed. If the other team starts all lefties, just start Suter. If things go good (winning 4-2 at the end of 5), bring in Hader and the game is 90% won. If Suter does not make it to 5 innings, you go with Jennings for two innings and see what happens.

 

If Suter is the starter and the other team start all righties, just start Woodruff.

[istanbultaye]

I think there are some rules about announced starting pitchers and changing them at the last minute barring injury aren't there? Additionally, if you do change your SP at the last minute, the opposing team could also change their lineup last minute.

[coolhandluke121]

Is it possible people thought of this before but there was an unspoken agreement not to open that can of worms? Could lead to some weird games of chicken with regard to submitting lineups and stuff, and would eventually require some new rules to prevent games from slowing down even more.

[liveforoctober]

Before the season started we had a discussion going about piggyback starting and I think that discussion is relevant here. As a few have mentioned, Suter seems to be a great candidate for this option. In the hypothetical another poster used above... if you give Taylor Williams the start.. you can force the hand of the opposing manager to put his left handed lineup in.. bringing in Brent then after the 1st or 2nd then gives him plenty of favorable matchups or makes the opposing manager burn his bench early.

 

I don't hate the idea at all.

 

I dont think starting a reliever forces an opposing manager to shift his lineup at all...and most teams have a combo of right and lefty hitters through the first few batters amongst their best hitters, which negates a platoon advantage that could be gained by opening the inning with a reliever. In this scenario, what happens when a reliever opening a game struggles? Are the presumed starters warming up early enough to get brought in quickly, or do they need to burn a 2nd pen arm to try and escape a jam? This could just as easily lead to burning a bullpen up quickly for a game, and if it's tight in the late innings forcing managers to leave guys in too long or not play matchups due to lack of options.

 

I get that in theory it seems like it should work, but two romo appearances against a righty heavy angels lineup in mid may isn't the definitive proof that's where baseball is headed. I also think the presumed advantage of knowing an opposing lineup and then starting a game with a reliever based on the best matchup will be nipped in the bud - I think once lineups are posted, if a player or pitcher gets scratched before gametime they are done. Romo was basically the announced starter because they knew the Angels really didn't have LH options to put at the top of the order. Since ohtani wasn't going to be in the lineup sat or sun due to his pitching schedule, the angels had only valbuena and Calhoun as lh options on their whole roster, neither of which is an everyday option anywhere near the top of the lineup.

 

 

Couple of counterpoints:

 

1) This wouldn't be an 'every turn through' scenario. It would only be used if advantageous. Like you mentioned, Romo was used because the Angels were RH heavy at the top. If the same scenario presented itself to Milwaukee, why not throw a RHP against 6 righties so Suter misses out on them for one turn through?...

 

2) "In this scenario, what happens when a reliever opening a game struggles?" - What if Suter struggles? Aren't you running the risk of anybody who starts the game struggling? A guy like Matt Albers is being under utilized (appearing in < 40% of games) because of how many great late inning options we have. Albers has only given up a run in 3 of his 19 appearances. So using small sample/silly math - we have an 85% chance of starting the game off with a clean inning or two before giving the ball to Suter to get us through 4 or 5 more.

 

3) "I dont think starting a reliever forces an opposing manager to shift his lineup at all...and most teams have a combo of right and lefty hitters through the first few batters amongst their best hitters, which negates a platoon advantage that could be gained by opening the inning with a reliever." I definitely agree. Most teams do. But some teams don't and if you catch them on a day when someone is nursing and injury or something so they are heavily RH ... use it to your advantage?

 

4) "Are the presumed starters warming up early enough to get brought in quickly?" Your 'real' starter begins the game knowing he is coming in in either the 2nd or 3rd ... he will be stretching and getting loose from the get go I would assume...

 

Again, I'm not saying it is a sure thing. But if the right situation presents itself the Brewers have the right personnel to capitalize.

[FVBrewerFan]

I have no problem with doing things differently, but this just seems like changing something for the sake of change. Trying to be too cute.

 

I think the next step is continue to expand the length of outings for the relief pitchers. Every time a relief pitcher enters the game, there's a chance he doesn't "have it" that night. So when you use 4-5 guys, you're just increasing the odds one of them blows up.

 

There have been games where Jeffress, Hader, Jennings, Albers, etc. have been cruising. Just give them another inning. Especially in games where you're behind or up 2-3 runs. Just continue to expand on this, with the goal being more innings with less appearances for each pitcher. This, in theory, should help keep them fresh at the end of the season and playoffs.

[MrTPlush]

This idea sounds nice in theory, but in practice there are a ton of problems. Teams already overwork their bullpens as it is. What if you do this, the starter bombs, and then you have to use even more relievers. What about burning your prized relievers only to have your starter just absolutely suck (Hi Suter)? There is so much opportunity for wasted bullpen I just cannot imagine this over an entire season. I really can’t.

 

It’s a cool idea and I applaud the outside the box thinking.

[YelichPosse]

I think this is a good idea for a team like Tampa Bay that is well aware they aren't going anywhere this year. For us, however, the way CC is going about stretching out our star relievers , is the correct way to use a bullpen. I wonder why it hasn't caught on much sooner overall. You had an Andrew Miller, and he was "revolutionary". However Rollie Fingers and fellas on that level back in the 80's routinely worked 2-3 innings for saves. If I'm not mistaken Dennis Eckersley is the one who started to really shorten those appearances into more so the 9th inning.

 

I really think as has been stated.... if you have reliever A who pitches 75 innings this year in say, 70 appearances and reliever B who pitches 100 innings in 55 appearances, reliever B will have less chance of injury even though he put in more innings. The whole warm up process puts wear and tear on the body as it is. So if he's doing that less, i think you can get more millage out of guys going forward. Just makes sense! Not sure why we ever got away from that original way bullpens were used.

[liveforoctober]

This idea sounds nice in theory, but in practice there are a ton of problems. Teams already overwork their bullpens as it is. What if you do this, the starter bombs, and then you have to use even more relievers. What about burning your prized relievers only to have your starter just absolutely suck (Hi Suter)? There is so much opportunity for wasted bullpen I just cannot imagine this over an entire season. I really can’t.

 

It’s a cool idea and I applaud the outside the box thinking.

 

I guess people are discussing two different things. I strongly dislike the idea over an entire season. For a game or two when the match-ups are favorable? I love it.

 

I'm not sure why people are concerned about the starter bombing all of a sudden. What if we start Suter as he normally would and he can't get out of the 1st inning? How is that any different? The risk of a full bullpen game is always there.

[homer]

I think this is a good idea for a team like Tampa Bay that is well aware they aren't going anywhere this year. For us, however, the way CC is going about stretching out our star relievers , is the correct way to use a bullpen. I wonder why it hasn't caught on much sooner overall. You had an Andrew Miller, and he was "revolutionary". However Rollie Fingers and fellas on that level back in the 80's routinely worked 2-3 innings for saves. If I'm not mistaken Dennis Eckersley is the one who started to really shorten those appearances into more so the 9th inning.

 

What's old is new...

 

I blame Ned Yost. Regardless of situation he would not put a guy in unless it was "his inning". So 7th inning guy could not pitch in 6th, 8th inning guy in 7th, and God forbid we bring in the closer in the 8th. Roenicke was just as bad.

[YelichPosse]

I think this is a good idea for a team like Tampa Bay that is well aware they aren't going anywhere this year. For us, however, the way CC is going about stretching out our star relievers , is the correct way to use a bullpen. I wonder why it hasn't caught on much sooner overall. You had an Andrew Miller, and he was "revolutionary". However Rollie Fingers and fellas on that level back in the 80's routinely worked 2-3 innings for saves. If I'm not mistaken Dennis Eckersley is the one who started to really shorten those appearances into more so the 9th inning.

 

What's old is new...

 

I blame Ned Yost. Regardless of situation he would not put a guy in unless it was "his inning". So 7th inning guy could not pitch in 6th, 8th inning guy in 7th, and God forbid we bring in the closer in the 8th. Roenicke was just as bad.

 

I just shuddered at the mention of those two names....

 

I do agree, how silly it was with all those "innings" assigned. Really lost a lot of games that way....

[DuWayne Steurer]

It's interesting that people talk about bullpen over-use, when relief pitchers used to pitch 90 or 100 innings regularly.

 

Look at the innings totals of our own guy, Chuck Crim!

 

https://www.baseball-reference.com/players/c/crimch01.shtml

 

Mike Marshall, Elroy Face, Goose Gossage, etc, etc, etc, etc. These guys weren't appearing in 80, 90 games. They were pitching 2-3 innings at a time.

 

Dan Quisenberry had a 4 year stretch in the 80's where the FEWEST IP in a season he had was 129, without starting a single game.

 

https://www.baseball-reference.com/players/q/quiseda01.shtml

 

What's going on now isn't necessarily revolutionary, just managers understanding and realizing that using your best reliever exclusively in the 9th inning with a 1 to 3 run lead is stupid and terrible strategy, and that you are, in fact allowed to use your relievers for more than one inning at a time.

[YelichPosse]

Exactly. It appears that about 1990 is where it moved from multiple innings to specific inning assignments. Its crazy looking back to see the change and it was abrupt!

[adambr2]

Another radical relief idea.

 

Say you have a really tight game, 1 run lead, 2 innings to go, against an elite lineup and team.

 

Could you alternate between a lefty and righty, say, Hader and Jeffress, for 2 innings, playing the handed matchups, sticking the other one in a corner OF spot when they're not matched up to keep them in the game?

 

Would this be too disruptive for a pitcher to benefit? There's obviously also a risk of actually allowing a ball in play to your pitcher playing in the OF, though if you use guys like Hader, Knebel, Jeffress, Williams, these guys are often just not even letting the ball be put in play.

 

Just wondering why this would or wouldn't work.

[rickh150]

http://www.thesportsbank.net/the-bank/doug-melvins-wacky-pitching-experiment-deserves-mlb-consideration/

 

Melvin's idea, actually.... funny how these "new" analytical bullpen ideas were from the "old" regime.

[SomewhereInTime]

http://www.thesportsbank.net/the-bank/doug-melvins-wacky-pitching-experiment-deserves-mlb-consideration/

 

Melvin's idea, actually.... funny how these "new" analytical bullpen ideas were from the "old" regime.

 

Great find, wish we would have implemented this, especially around 2012ish

[areacodes]

http://www.thesportsbank.net/the-bank/doug-melvins-wacky-pitching-experiment-deserves-mlb-consideration/

 

Melvin's idea, actually.... funny how these "new" analytical bullpen ideas were from the "old" regime.

 

Melvin didn't use analytics?