2019 Brewers' pitching staff

[coolhandluke121]

TBBC has made some great arguments about the future of pitching and has great data and reasoning to back up his ideas. Just because it hasn't changed overnight doesn't make him wrong. It's regrettable that the conversation got so tense so many times because it has always been a really fascinating discussion. Personally I feel it all took a turn for the worse because people called his ideas ridiculous and relied on being in an overwhelming majority to refute his ideas and used logic like "teams aren't doing it for a reason" (as if every innovation in baseball history was not once something "teams just don't do") and there's not enough personnel to make it work (even though he and I have both explained countless times how it could work and how certain situations make it a good idea). Most people have also failed to even acknowledge that there are all kinds of flaws with the status quo (pitchers facing the order too many times, not getting enough innings out of relievers, too many plate appearances by starting pitchers, not having the right platoon match-ups because of rigid rotations), but people just accept them instead of thinking of creative ways to mitigate them. For ever hypothetical worst-case scenario flaw you can find with TBBC's ideas, you can find at least one - and often two or three - with the current status quo.

 

I've been a believer in these ideas since their innovations in the 2017 stretch run, as well as some of Tampa's ideas that same year. I've pushed them as well, independently of hearing anyone else advocate them. And a few of the most innovative, analytical teams in baseball are dipping their toe in more and more. The reluctance to dive in headfirst is understandable, but I think it's a shame that it has to turn in to this "see, you were wrong, the Brewers aren't doing it so don't ever come up with any crazy ideas again" tone. And I love the fact that the Brewers are clearly willing to try it if other options fail. I still think they should have tried it more from the start, and I understand that if some starters separate themselves from the pack and pitch very well, they will get 6-7 innings regularly, but I think they are likely to milk a few extra wins out of this limited staff by doing more of what they did last night.

 

Davies

Chacin

Anderson

Gio

Nelson

---

Woodruff

Burnes

Peralta

Guerra

Houser

 

That's quantity over quality for SP's, and when you have that, you may as well use more of them to keep everyone fresh, manipulate match-ups as much as possible, limit times through the order, and use several of them in the bullpen (most of them are more talented than the average middle reliever, even if they are questionable as traditional starters). Several of them have options and have looked much better out of the pen. You can adjust to situations more if you have less rigid rotations. It just makes too much sense to not happen unless 4-5 guys pitch great and lock down traditional starting spots (though I would argue it's much more likely that some of them will look great precisely because the Brewers stop trying to force them into a traditional rotation role).

[Brew crew 92]

I like Claudio.

His rubber arm has lots of value.

 

Just don’t like him as much in a potential playoff pen when the team might want one less pitcher, and we have better more dominant arms.

 

Didn’t talk about openers, but it sure looks like a help for Peralta.

[tmwiese55]

TBBC has made some great arguments about the future of pitching and has great data and reasoning to back up his ideas. Just because it hasn't changed overnight doesn't make him wrong. It's regrettable that the conversation got so tense so many times because it has always been a really fascinating discussion. Personally I feel it all took a turn for the worse because people called his ideas ridiculous and relied on being in an overwhelming majority to refute his ideas and used logic like "teams aren't doing it for a reason" (as if every innovation in baseball history was not once something "teams just don't do") and there's not enough personnel to make it work (even though he and I have both explained countless times how it could work and how certain situations make it a good idea). Most people have also failed to even acknowledge that there are all kinds of flaws with the status quo (pitchers facing the order too many times, not getting enough innings out of relievers, too many plate appearances by starting pitchers, not having the right platoon match-ups because of rigid rotations), but people just accept them instead of thinking of creative ways to mitigate them. For ever hypothetical worst-case scenario flaw you can find with TBBC's ideas, you can find at least one - and often two or three - with the current status quo.

 

I've been a believer in these ideas since their innovations in the 2017 stretch run, as well as some of Tampa's ideas that same year. I've pushed them as well, independently of hearing anyone else advocate them. And a few of the most innovative, analytical teams in baseball are dipping their toe in more and more. The reluctance to dive in headfirst is understandable, but I think it's a shame that it has to turn in to this "see, you were wrong, the Brewers aren't doing it so don't ever come up with any crazy ideas again" tone. And I love the fact that the Brewers are clearly willing to try it if other options fail. I still think they should have tried it more from the start, and I understand that if some starters separate themselves from the pack and pitch very well, they will get 6-7 innings regularly, but I think they are likely to milk a few extra wins out of this limited staff by doing more of what they did last night.

 

Davies

Chacin

Anderson

Gio

Nelson

---

Woodruff

Burnes

Peralta

Guerra

Houser

 

That's quantity over quality for SP's, and when you have that, you may as well use more of them to keep everyone fresh, manipulate match-ups as much as possible, limit times through the order, and use several of them in the bullpen (most of them are more talented than the average middle reliever, even if they are questionable as traditional starters). Several of them have options and have looked much better out of the pen. You can adjust to situations more if you have less rigid rotations. It just makes too much sense to not happen unless 4-5 guys pitch great and lock down traditional starting spots (though I would argue it's much more likely that some of them will look great precisely because the Brewers stop trying to force them into a traditional rotation role).

 

Good post. And generally it makes sense and almost everyone here has acknowledged having more long relievers is totally logical given the mediocrity of our SPs and our strategy of trying to yank first sign of trouble the 3rd time through. Everyone is pretty much in agreeance there. The biggest issue is still the roster rule limits to be able to fully implement something drastic of this nature. If we got a 26th spot and DH I really think it would open up way more options, but now it seems even if the 26th spot happens they're going to put in some P rules basically designed to prevent this type of innovation.

 

One issue in the post is you made it out like everyone has been out to get this poster when it's kind of been the other way around due to his aggressiveness and condescension, along with constantly shifting his narrative to try and still be proven right. First, again I think we acknowledge he's right to get more long relievers and best arms up if we want to win now. Thing is due to roster rules the team is still thinking it's best long term if the 3 young guys can be normal-ish staraters rather than 2-3 inning guys. And in general teams still need innings eating starters due to roster rules. The disagreement generally comes from if a massive overhaul is really feasible with the rules as opposed to just a here and there type of thing and of course September/October. But whenever a situation comes up a 'told ya so' post isn't productive to the conversation. Just like every time a normal starter were to get rolled out it would be stupid for someone else to say see told ya normal starters aren't going anywhere. It's just argumentative and not needed, enjoy the ride/season. And yes I think analytics folks are looking for gaps in the system as much as possible.

 

Essentially last night was a starting P and a long reliever, just in reverse order. Worked great, lets try it again. It's really not logical that this will be the magic potion that makes Peralta consistent but who knows, ride it til it bucks if he's got the "yips" in the 1st inning. Really though whenever he comes in the games should be just like the 1st inning so it's just a small sample thing. That said, he's done well in all his relief stints I remember in spite of it not making sense. So maybe we should start looking at him in that Burnes/Wood last season 2-3 inning role, maybe knowing he only needs a few innings lets him throw harder and more freely, idk. So far he's done great in these instances. And in theory we have two normal type starters coming up again soon in Anderson/Nelson

[tmwiese55]

I'd simply ask that you go back and ask that you reread your past posts if you don't think you've changed/spun the narrative as this has gone on that you haven't been confrontational or condescending. Of course, some have come back at you in similar tones now so it's circle of negativity that just keeps going and is just not needed. I mean, at this point you're trying to take credit for any long relief outing or a spot start as if that's some new strategy. That said, the current narrative is fairly reasonable with abundance of long relievers and using them when needed. Especially since two of the youngsters essentially have failed as starters (and many of the 1 inning relievers have failed) so far this year so it's easy/logical to slide them into multi inning roles.

[pacopete4]

My head hurts again...

[Ron Robinsons Beard]

TBBC, I know I have been one of those who have gotten into it with you in the past regarding your thoughts on the future of the Brewers' pitching. I totally see where you're coming from with those thoughts, and toning down the condescension has definitely helped in getting your points across, and in helping me see that a lot of your theory has merit. While I don't quite see the drastic shifts in philosophy you are predicting coming into play, what I do see is a front office who has put together a staff versatile enough to make adjustments on the fly, seemingly game-to-game at times. Last night's game was an excellent example of this versatility coming into play, and it worked marvelously. While I don't see openers and/or piggybacking becoming a regular thing anytime soon, the fact that they have the horses to do it is ultimately a recipe for success.

[True Blue Brew Crew]

I'd simply ask that you go back and ask that you reread your past posts if you don't think you've changed the narrative as this has gone on that you haven't been confrontational or condescending. Of course, some have come back at you in similar tones now so it's circle of negativity that just keeps going and is just not needed. That said, the current narrative is fairly reasonable with abundance of long relievers and using them when needed. Especially since two of the youngsters essentially have failed as starters (and many of the 1 inning relievers have failed) so far this year so it's easy/logical to slide them into multi inning roles.

 

If what I've been saying from the start has changed, how did CHL so eloquently summarize with great detail exactly what I laid out last fall. There's no doubt he conveys information far better than I. And I literally just posted for something like the 3rd or 4th time in the past week that I should have handled my own responses better. I've done what the mods have asked. It's a shame others aren't being held to the same standard because then the nonsense would stop and the focus would again be the change that is literally happening before our eyes. And we could also start enjoying the change that is working right now.

[True Blue Brew Crew]

TBBC, I know I have been one of those who have gotten into it with you in the past regarding your thoughts on the future of the Brewers' pitching. I totally see where you're coming from with those thoughts, and toning down the condescension has definitely helped in getting your points across, and in helping me see that a lot of your theory has merit. While I don't quite see the drastic shifts in philosophy you are predicting coming into play, what I do see is a front office who has put together a staff versatile enough to make adjustments on the fly, seemingly game-to-game at times. Last night's game was an excellent example of this versatility coming into play, and it worked marvelously. While I don't see openers and/or piggybacking becoming a regular thing anytime soon, the fact that they have the horses to do it is ultimately a recipe for success.

 

And I appreciate being able to have a conversation with you again. The fact we couldn't for some time was entirely my fault. I think where we're at right now, is you holding the belief that the current deployment is about as far as this will go. I'm still convinced there's much more to come. I think everything I laid out in "TFOP" will see the light of day. And as I said then, it will take time. I don't have any problem with either viewpoint. And I respect the opinion of those of think it's too dramatic a change.

[tmwiese55]

I'd simply ask that you go back and ask that you reread your past posts if you don't think you've changed the narrative as this has gone on that you haven't been confrontational or condescending. Of course, some have come back at you in similar tones now so it's circle of negativity that just keeps going and is just not needed. That said, the current narrative is fairly reasonable with abundance of long relievers and using them when needed. Especially since two of the youngsters essentially have failed as starters (and many of the 1 inning relievers have failed) so far this year so it's easy/logical to slide them into multi inning roles.

 

If what I've been saying from the start has changed, how did CHL so eloquently summarize with great detail exactly what I laid out last fall. There's no doubt he conveys information far better than I. And I literally just posted for something like the 3rd or 4th time in the past week that I should have handled my own responses better. I've done what the mods have asked. It's a shame others aren't being held to the same standard because then the nonsense would stop and the focus would again be the change that is literally happening before our eyes. And we could also start enjoying the change that is working right now.

 

Because he summarized where we're at now. Long story short: Having lots of long relievers to use in combination with a normalish starting rotation is not the same tandem and piggy back starters, more or less going away from 5 man rotation. Now, you'll say that's not what you meant by piggyback and tandem or whatever the terms were to imply a planned way, but that's what was said. Now you've toned it back to that you'll still have starters go as long as possible but with plenty of long guys to step in as needed. I think we're all on board with that and should just leave it that and see how it plays out as more injuries happen and see how wild they get come September if guys are doing well. Regardless, it doesn't need to have the gotcha told ya so tone. It should just be a discussion.

[MrTPlush]

It very well could work and if guys could be reliable it could be extremely effective. I will say for 99% of teams out there it just is not something that would work and probably why people would think it is impossible. I mean I count 9 guys that I really wouldn't be too concerned throwing out there for 4+ innings...all of which have seen forms of success starting at the MLB level.

 

I mean that just doesn't happen....teams usually don't have that kind of pitching talent, or erm, depth. When Nelson/Anderson return that will make the staff real interesting and how they go about that. They could make some kind of permanent opener for Peralta or as I mentioned before more of the unplanned piggybacking style staff...frequency as needed.

 

I could think of some past examples where a team has a number of quality starters sitting in the pen, but most of those teams had elite pitching staffs where piggybacking them wasn't really logical. Nor did any of those teams as many as we have. I think we are a pretty interesting situation because we have no elite starters and honestly no well above average guys either...where suddenly piggybacking anyone is pretty logical across the board.

[Brew crew 92]

9 quality starter type arms( yes I’m incl houser)(but excluding Guerra) means, givin good health, houser starts in AAA. Woodruff Burnes Peralta in pen. And yes I believe Peralta will excel there like he did last year in the playoffs against the dodgers.

 

Only questions I have are:

 

Will the crew put Rasmussen in the playoff pen?

Will jeffress continue to improve?

If the answere is yes to both we won’t need Claudio and this pen would totally shut down any team including the best team in baseball the dodgers.

[pacopete4]

Claudio isn't going anywhere. He's pitched fine and we gave up value to get him.

[xisxisxis]

9 quality starter type arms( yes I’m incl houser)(but excluding Guerra) means, givin good health, houser starts in AAA. Woodruff Burnes Peralta in pen. And yes I believe Peralta will excel there like he did last year in the playoffs against the dodgers.

 

Only questions I have are:

 

Will the crew put Rasmussen in the playoff pen?

Will jeffress continue to improve?

If the answere is yes to both we won’t need Claudio and this pen would totally shut down any team including the best team in baseball the dodgers.

I think we finally found Clancyphile's birth father...

[Ron Robinsons Beard]

Claudio isn't going anywhere. He's pitched fine and we gave up value to get him.

 

That doesn't fit the narrative! Claudio doesn't throw fast, therefore he sucks!

[coolhandluke121]

 

One issue in the post is you made it out like everyone has been out to get this poster when it's kind of been the other way around due to his aggressiveness and condescension, along with constantly shifting his narrative to try and still be proven right.

 

I didn't follow every post in the debate but I thought I saw a lot of people belittle the idea before the tone really shifted. Being in an overwhelming majority often seems to lead to that dynamic in my experience, and I think the majority didn't really listen to all the subtleties of the argument before implicitly dismissing it as some harebrained scheme that should not even be discussed. I think that kind of response immediately puts the minority on the defensive, and it happens so fast that it's easy to miss how the tone got there in the first place. There was also the crazy semantics argument about what "piggybacking" actually means, which I still don't think is resolved. The people who still want to dismiss the idea are probably still saying it means something just as rigid as set rotations, which I don't agree with at all.

 

I would also be quick to note that it's incredibly easy for an overwhelming majority to say it was the person in the minority who messed up the tone. Not sure that's what happened here, but it was my general impression. In any case, may that cycle end soon so we can all keep doing our best to be proven right in as gentlemanly a way as possible.

[homer]

I'd simply ask that you go back and ask that you reread your past posts if you don't think you've changed the narrative as this has gone on that you haven't been confrontational or condescending. Of course, some have come back at you in similar tones now so it's circle of negativity that just keeps going and is just not needed. That said, the current narrative is fairly reasonable with abundance of long relievers and using them when needed. Especially since two of the youngsters essentially have failed as starters (and many of the 1 inning relievers have failed) so far this year so it's easy/logical to slide them into multi inning roles.

 

If what I've been saying from the start has changed, how did CHL so eloquently summarize with great detail exactly what I laid out last fall. There's no doubt he conveys information far better than I. And I literally just posted for something like the 3rd or 4th time in the past week that I should have handled my own responses better. I've done what the mods have asked. It's a shame others aren't being held to the same standard because then the nonsense would stop and the focus would again be the change that is literally happening before our eyes. And we could also start enjoying the change that is working right now.

 

 

No you haven't. Condescension has no place here and you are continually the instigator. See your PM's. Be better or don't post.

[coolhandluke121]

It very well could work and if guys could be reliable it could be extremely effective. I will say for 99% of teams out there it just is not something that would work and probably why people would think it is impossible. I mean I count 9 guys that I really wouldn't be too concerned throwing out there for 4+ innings...all of which have seen forms of success starting at the MLB level.

 

I mean that just doesn't happen....teams usually don't have that kind of pitching talent, or erm, depth. When Nelson/Anderson return that will make the staff real interesting and how they go about that. They could make some kind of permanent opener for Peralta or as I mentioned before more of the unplanned piggybacking style staff...frequency as needed.

 

 

Yes, but isn't that kind of circular? Teams aren't constructed that way because they are built for the status quo. Then you can say it's a foolish idea because it wouldn't work for most teams. There are lots of teams without great starters who might benefit from constructing their team the way the Brewers have. There may be too much emphasis on labeling guys either "starters" or "relievers". The fact that many successful relievers are just failed starters, and yet often have better numbers than starters, is evidence that many starters are pitching too much and relievers not enough.

 

I think the main reason it hasn't happened is because most teams have starters who are clearly much better than their long relief options, so you try to maximize their innings even if they go 3-4 times through the order and, in the NL, bat 2-3 times almost every start. But then there's a market inefficiency for over-paying the limited number of proven "starters" when fringe starters could be just as productive in some sort of piggyback paradigm. If you can get Davies, Anderson, Guerra, Houser, and Gio for the price of one Chatwood, that should be the plan. Then get creative with usage to make it work.

[Brew crew 92]

Claudio isn't going anywhere. He's pitched fine and we gave up value to get him.

 

That doesn't fit the narrative! Claudio doesn't throw fast, therefore he sucks!

 

I’ll say it AGAIN

I like Claudio

 

But IF we have an abundance of high leverage multi-inning pen arms at the back end that can strike out the side, he’s the one I’m de-activating for the playoffs.

 

If it’s a choice between Rasmussen and Claudio, I’m going with Rasmussen.

[Ron Robinsons Beard]

Claudio isn't going anywhere. He's pitched fine and we gave up value to get him.

 

That doesn't fit the narrative! Claudio doesn't throw fast, therefore he sucks!

 

I’ll say it AGAIN

I like Claudio

 

But IF we have an abundance of high leverage multi-inning pen arms at the back end that can strike out the side, he’s the one I’m de-activating for the playoffs.

 

If it’s a choice between Rasmussen and Claudio, I’m going with Rasmussen.

 

I disagree. If Cody Bellinger is coming up to bat in a 1-run game in the 7th, and my choices are a veteran lefty reliever who is nails against lefty power, or a relatively untested right-handed rookie fireballer, I'm taking the proven lefty. Every time.

 

That said ... this is putting the cart WAY before the horse. There's a very good possibility that pen will look substantially different by the time playoff baseball rolls around.

[pacopete4]

Drew Rasmussen is pitching in A ball right now. Why is he even being discussed for a playoff roster spot? Falling in love with prospects is one thing but my lord is this just absolutely crazy. Let the guy develop and work his way through the system at least.

[Lathund]

I’ll say it AGAIN

I like Claudio

 

But IF we have an abundance of high leverage multi-inning pen arms at the back end that can strike out the side, he’s the one I’m de-activating for the playoffs.

 

If it’s a choice between Rasmussen and Claudio, I’m going with Rasmussen.

 

I'm not a fan of the LOOGY concept, but I think your thinking is backwards here. It's the regular season where the true benefits of an extra multi-inning relief arm shine. Not because they necessarily give you the best chance in any individual game, but because they help give you a shot at the best 162-game record. In the playoffs that's less of a concern, with the many off days and the limited scope, there you can afford to use more specialists and 1-inning guys. I'd still want to have several multi-inning arms, but there is absolutely room for a lefty specialist. Especially one of the best in the business, which Claudio is.

[mrn1ceguy]

Drew Rasmussen is pitching in A ball right now. Why is he even being discussed for a playoff roster spot? Falling in love with prospects is one thing but my lord is this just absolutely crazy. Let the guy develop and work his way through the system at least.

 

Well, he just got bumped to AA today. So in about a month he went from A -> A+ -> AA with only needing 5 showings to prove his worth. If he is in AAA by mid-July and continuing to dominate, I would consider it a definite possibility. I expect him to run into challenges at some point in time, most likely with AA where he will stay all year. That being said the Brewers are definitely advancing him hard and quick so it is a realistic possibility.

[MrTPlush]

Drew Rasmussen is pitching in A ball right now. Why is he even being discussed for a playoff roster spot? Falling in love with prospects is one thing but my lord is this just absolutely crazy. Let the guy develop and work his way through the system at least.

 

Well, he just got bumped to AA today. So in about a month he went from A -> A+ -> AA with only needing 5 showings to prove his worth. If he is in AAA by mid-July and continuing to dominate, I would consider it a definite possibility. I expect him to run into challenges at some point in time, most likely with AA where he will stay all year. That being said the Brewers are definitely advancing him hard and quick so it is a realistic possibility.

 

He is a college pitcher...or was. Getting to AA fast isn't that hard. Things slow down fast once you get to AA. Especially since he is a starter as it stands. They would have to make him a reliever to push him all the way to the MLB level this year.

 

Look at Burnes, those kind of movements are normal for guys. Blow through A- through A+....then you get stuck at AA for a solid half year and then maybe get the bump to AAA if utterly dominating. Him at the MLB level this year would be massive optimism...not impossible he could be a September call-up...but man that is crazy optimistic and assuming he pitches like the next great thing without a single bump in the road till then

[Brew crew 92]

Drew Rasmussen is pitching in A ball right now. Why is he even being discussed for a playoff roster spot? Falling in love with prospects is one thing but my lord is this just absolutely crazy. Let the guy develop and work his way through the system at least.

 

Well, he just got bumped to AA today. So in about a month he went from A -> A+ -> AA with only needing 5 showings to prove his worth. If he is in AAA by mid-July and continuing to dominate, I would consider it a definite possibility. I expect him to run into challenges at some point in time, most likely with AA where he will stay all year. That being said the Brewers are definitely advancing him hard and quick so it is a realistic possibility.

 

He is a college pitcher...or was. Getting to AA fast isn't that hard. Things slow down fast once you get to AA. Especially since he is a starter as it stands. They would have to make him a reliever to push him all the way to the MLB level this year.

 

Look at Burnes, those kind of movements are normal for guys. Blow through A- through A+....then you get stuck at AA for a solid half year and then maybe get the bump to AAA if utterly dominating. Him at the MLB level this year would be massive optimism...not impossible he could be a September call-up...but man that is crazy optimistic and assuming he pitches like the next great thing without a single bump in the road till then

 

Plus plus FB plus plus curve plus change plus command best stuff in the organization and it’s not close. 24 yr old, so he’s not young, twice tj only negative, so the crew only letting him throw 3 innings or 50 pitch max. But that’s a Josh Hader.

 

I think When CC saw him throwing 100 with knebel curve and command to top it off in ST, they knew what they had. The crew had him start his FIRST pro game at MILLER park for that T- rat game in April, I think for a reason.

[True Blue Brew Crew]

Toby H (And That) predicted on Twitter that Rasmussen would be in Biloxi by mid-May and by gosh he was right. He's now saying that if Drew fares well in AA over the next couple months, an appearance in Milwaukee by year's end is quite possible. I don't see any reason to think otherwise.