Peralta returns to the rotation this week?

[True Blue Brew Crew]

Why not? Why not go into a game knowing you're going to try and get a majority of the innings pitched from two guys that are built up as starters and capable of each giving you at least 5IP, when your 40 man pitcher roster is chock full of those options compared to having a deep supply of shutdown relievers that can be relied on for ~3-4 appearances per week?

 

I'd much rather take a piggy backing approach with 1 rotation spot than roll with a 6 man rotation or shuffling a guy who should be starting somewhere into an inconsistent bullpen role at this point.

 

Agreed. Other teams are doing the same thing.

 

The Brewers clearly saw the value of pulling starters after 3 dominant postseason innings. No, they can't copy that exact blueprint in the regular season. But they CAN seek out similar advantages by getting creative like Tampa is. The Brewers seem to be dipping their toes in the water. It seems like just a matter of time before they dive in.

[tmwiese55]

Agree. But I think the logic would be that whoever you're starting right now is theoretically stretched out enough to go 100ish pitches if things go well. So if it is going well it's not like you're going to yank him after 3 innings because you're piggy backing. You're going to go as long as possible. The incidents late last year were guys not stretched out. So, if Anderson or whoever does well they're going to go as long as possible. At which point you might be into your 'high leverage' guys like JJ/Hader and not need the piggyback.

 

So it's somewhat semantics regarding the term in that right now it's unlikely to be locked in a two guys pitch 6 innings type combo starter the way folks think of the term piggybacking. But maybe having a long guy lined up ready to go if needed is maybe the better way to look at it. That said, with all our starters being poor right now it's going to be tough to manager the roster spots since this can happen any day and you can't bank on any guy consistently getting long starts.

 

But in general I get the logic of having our best arms up and using in longer outing rather than cycling through the Wilsons/Williams/etc. That said, it just might be too early in the year to pull all these guys out of being starter stretched out. First, because they've all been so blah that we don't know who's gonna stick as the 'starters' so will need replacements. Second, injuries will happen so you'll need stretched out guys to fill in eventually. Third, it's best for the 3 young guys to develop as starters instead of bailing on it so quickly. I guess I'm saying this might be something that gets molded as the year goes on and it might be a process.

[True Blue Brew Crew]

Agree. But I think the logic would be that whoever you're starting right now is theoretically stretched out enough to go 100ish pitches if things go well. So if it is going well it's not like you're going to yank him after 3 innings because you're piggy backing. You're going to go as long as possible. The incidents late last year were guys not stretched out. So, if Anderson or whoever does well they're going to go as long as possible. At which point you might be into your 'high leverage' guys like JJ/Hader and not need the piggyback.

 

So it's somewhat semantics regarding the term in that right now it's unlikely to be locked in a two guys pitch 6 innings type combo starter the way folks think of the term piggybacking. But maybe having a long guy lined up ready to go if needed is maybe the better way to look at it. That said, with all our starters being poor right now it's going to be tough to manager the roster spots since this can happen any day and you can't bank on any guy consistently getting long starts.

 

But in general I get the logic of having our best arms up and using in longer outing rather than cycling through the Wilsons/Williams/etc. That said, it just might be too early in the year to pull all these guys out of being starter stretched out. First, because they've all been so blah that we don't know who's gonna stick as the 'starters' so will need replacements. Second, injuries will happen so you'll need stretched out guys to fill in eventually. Third, it's best for the 3 young guys to develop as starters instead of bailing on it so quickly. I guess I'm saying this might be something that gets molded as the year goes on and it might be a process.

 

We're in total agreement. I understood pulling Burnes and Woodruff after 2-3 dominant innings in the postseason. I wouldn't agree with it now. An ideal deployment right now would be covering 9 innings with 2 guys traditionally thought of as starters. I've never been a fan of using 6 bullets to cover 9 innings. It worked last year because the Brewers pen was so deep. This year it's Russian Roulette.

[FVBrewerFan]

There hasn't been and won't be any piggy-backing or blurring the lines of starter/reliever. Unless you mean a reliever pitching more than one inning, which isn't exactly a novel idea.

 

Why not? Why not go into a game knowing you're going to try and get a majority of the innings pitched from two guys that are built up as starters and capable of each giving you at least 5IP, when your 40 man pitcher roster is chock full of those options compared to having a deep supply of shutdown relievers that can be relied on for ~3-4 appearances per week?

 

I'd much rather take a piggy backing approach with 1 rotation spot than roll with a 6 man rotation or shuffling a guy who should be starting somewhere into an inconsistent bullpen role at this point.

 

So let's say the plan is to piggyback Chacin/Peralta 4 innings each.

 

1) Chacin is horrible and can only go 2. Down 6-0. Now you want to use Peralta in a blow out game?

2) Chacin is pitching great. Up 6-0 after 4 innings. You want to yank him just because his 4 innings are up?

3) Close game, Peralta replaces Chacin after 4. Now in the 6th inning Peralta is AB with bases loaded. You're going to let him hit just because he needs his 4 innings as piggyback starter?

 

I know the replies will e, well it doesn't have to be THAT rigid. If it's not, it's not piggybacking. Bringing in Peralta for to innings of relief is called a relief pitcher, not a piggyback. Very, very few games where it would make any sense at all to have one guy pitch roughly 4, then another guy pitch roughly 4.

[Fear The Chorizo]

There hasn't been and won't be any piggy-backing or blurring the lines of starter/reliever. Unless you mean a reliever pitching more than one inning, which isn't exactly a novel idea.

 

Why not? Why not go into a game knowing you're going to try and get a majority of the innings pitched from two guys that are built up as starters and capable of each giving you at least 5IP, when your 40 man pitcher roster is chock full of those options compared to having a deep supply of shutdown relievers that can be relied on for ~3-4 appearances per week?

 

I'd much rather take a piggy backing approach with 1 rotation spot than roll with a 6 man rotation or shuffling a guy who should be starting somewhere into an inconsistent bullpen role at this point.

 

So let's say the plan is to piggyback Chacin/Peralta 4 innings each.

 

1) Chacin is horrible and can only go 2. Down 6-0. Now you want to use Peralta in a blow out game?

2) Chacin is pitching great. Up 6-0 after 4 innings. You want to yank him just because his 4 innings are up?

3) Close game, Peralta replaces Chacin after 4. Now in the 6th inning Peralta is AB with bases loaded. You're going to let him hit just because he needs his 4 innings as piggyback starter?

 

I know the replies will e, well it doesn't have to be THAT rigid. If it's not, it's not piggybacking. Bringing in Peralta for to innings of relief is called a relief pitcher, not a piggyback. Very, very few games where it would make any sense at all to have one guy pitch roughly 4, then another guy pitch roughly 4.

 

1st off I'd never pick Chacin as one of the starters currently in the rotation to piggy back - but I'll just keep referring to him when responding to the rest of your questions.

 

1 - yes, absolutely. It's a blowout game that the team has limited chances to win. get Peralta his innings and see where things go with the game come inning 7 or 8. This way the bullpen is preserved in case one of the starters not being piggybacked has a blowup game.

2 - no not at all - if a starter is pitching great and is capable of giving you ~100 pitches through 5+ innings, you let him make his full start. I'd prefer for the starter in a piggy back situation to go at least the first 5, so I don't know where your 4 inning suggestion comes from.

3 - again, not sure why Peralta is coming in after 4 if Chacin is pitching ok - particularly when considering who's due in the lineup to start innings 5 and 6. Ideally, Peralta would enter the game in the 5th/6th/7th inning and come in right after Chacin is pinch hit for in his last AB. If Chacin is having difficulties getting out of his last inning, you'd use the best available bullpen option to try and work out of a jam, so Peralta comes in at the start of the next inning. if there's a late game situation where the pitcher's spot is due up and a PH is an obvious choice, then sure - you pull Peralta and let him get the rest of his pitches completed on the side in a simulated game to keep him stretched out. Should the NL finally adopt a DH, then this concern is completely mute.

 

None of the scenarios you presented really are good arguments to avoid this strategy.

[MrTPlush]

Our rotation is absolutely trash and people want to piggy back and use more than 5 guys. We can't even find 3 solid guys and here we are wanting to throw 6+ out there?

 

Yah, can't see that going any better. Keep Davies, Gio, Woodrfuff, Chacin, and Anderson out there. That is the most logical honestly. There is your stability.

 

If they do otherwise they are really confident in Peralta's future thus being okay with punting the season or they know the rest of the team isn't that great either and the Anderson's/Gio's of the world aren't going to get us far...just a marginally better record. The ceiling of some of those guys are limited. Maybe they will just pray on potential or accept they aren't a contender.

[tmwiese55]

Agree. But I think the logic would be that whoever you're starting right now is theoretically stretched out enough to go 100ish pitches if things go well. So if it is going well it's not like you're going to yank him after 3 innings because you're piggy backing. You're going to go as long as possible. The incidents late last year were guys not stretched out. So, if Anderson or whoever does well they're going to go as long as possible. At which point you might be into your 'high leverage' guys like JJ/Hader and not need the piggyback.

 

So it's somewhat semantics regarding the term in that right now it's unlikely to be locked in a two guys pitch 6 innings type combo starter the way folks think of the term piggybacking. But maybe having a long guy lined up ready to go if needed is maybe the better way to look at it. That said, with all our starters being poor right now it's going to be tough to manager the roster spots since this can happen any day and you can't bank on any guy consistently getting long starts.

 

But in general I get the logic of having our best arms up and using in longer outing rather than cycling through the Wilsons/Williams/etc. That said, it just might be too early in the year to pull all these guys out of being starter stretched out. First, because they've all been so blah that we don't know who's gonna stick as the 'starters' so will need replacements. Second, injuries will happen so you'll need stretched out guys to fill in eventually. Third, it's best for the 3 young guys to develop as starters instead of bailing on it so quickly. I guess I'm saying this might be something that gets molded as the year goes on and it might be a process.

 

We're in total agreement. I understood pulling Burnes and Woodruff after 2-3 dominant innings in the postseason. I wouldn't agree with it now. An ideal deployment right now would be covering 9 innings with 2 guys traditionally thought of as starters. I've never been a fan of using 6 bullets to cover 9 innings. It worked last year because the Brewers pen was so deep. This year it's Russian Roulette.

 

In that situation though. Theoretically you are leading. Do you want to trust your 'piggyback' guy instead of Hader to ice that win? Or in general most teams have 2-3 trusted guys to take care of the end of that game rather than relying on essentially a failed starter who likely isn't as good as those guys.

 

Yea it's semantics on the term then. Should just be saying let's have a strategy of many relievers capable of going multiple innings paired with a traditional 5 rotation trying go as long as they can. Sooo, basically the only difference is ditching blah 1 inning guys for folks who can go multiple innings. It's not a blow up of the starter system as it's trying to be portrayed, it's acknowledging that pitch count and 3rd time through the line up leads to shorter starts so you should plan that way.

[tmwiese55]

Our rotation is absolutely trash and people want to piggy back and use more than 5 guys. We can't even find 3 solid guys and here we are wanting to throw 6+ out there?

 

Yah, can't see that going any better. Keep Davies, Gio, Woodrfuff, Chacin, and Anderson out there. That is the most logical honestly. There is your stability.

 

If they do otherwise they are really confident in Peralta's future thus being okay with punting the season or they know the rest of the team isn't that great either and the Anderson's/Gio's of the world aren't going to get us far...just a marginally better record. The ceiling of some of those guys are limited. Maybe they will just pray on potential or accept they aren't a contender.

 

Exactly. That's what i said on this a week or two back. We can't find more than like 1 guy to trust at all right now, yet somehow we're going to find 15 guys to trust in this scenario?

[True Blue Brew Crew]

In that situation though. Theoretically you are leading. Do you want to trust your 'piggyback' guy instead of Hader to ice that win? Or in general most teams have 2-3 trusted guys to take care of the end of that game rather than relying on essentially a failed starter who likely isn't as good as those guys.

 

Yea it's semantics on the term then. Should just be saying let's have a strategy of many relievers capable of going multiple innings paired with a traditional 5 rotation trying go as long as they can. Sooo, basically the only difference is ditching blah 1 inning guys for folks who can go multiple innings. It's not a blow up of the starter system as it's trying to be portrayed, it's acknowledging that pitch count and 3rd time through the line up leads to shorter starts so you should plan that way.

 

I'm not being that rigid. I'm just talking about my perfect game that I look forward to unfolding someday. The Brewers would only ever deploy 2 starters to split 9 innings in a game they had a comfortable lead. The most common blueprint once they embrace the idea of utilizing starters in the pen and vise-versa is 3-5 innings from an IOG, followed by 2-4 innings by another starter-like pitcher, with a Hader-like pitcher locking down the final 1-2 innings. If the lead is 3 or 4 going into the 8th, hopefully they are comfortable with someone like Guerra covering the final two. That's a common scenario I see going forward. I'm just most excited about a game which 2 pitchers cover 9 and neither goes deeply through the batting order a 3rd time through. I love watching a pitcher throw a complete game as much as anyone else. I also have come to grips that it is damn near impossible the way Counsell is risk averse. So for me 2 starters teaming up to go nine will be the "new" complete game.

[Madhawk23]

I for one am a bit surprised with this move. I thought for sure that they would take their time with Freddy and have him pitch 3-4 turns through the rotation down in the minor leagues. Outside of the one start in Cincinnati, he just did not look very good - and as others have already pointed out - our rotation has at least seemed OK since Freddy went to the DL and Burnes got sent down. This seems like a major risk to now bring Freddy back up right away and potentially throw things off again. I'm assuming Chase is going to be the odd man out here, and I really don't agree with that move. I think he's pitched well in his two starts thus far, and deserves a chance to at least make a few more to see if we can rekindle some of that 2017 Chase.

[Brew crew 92]

1.) Burnes/ multi-inning

2.) Woodruff/ multi-inning

3.) Peralta/ multi-inning

Crew is going to pitch them in the rotation as long as they are progressing.

 

4.) Davies > rotation/ multi-inning

5.) Gio > rotation/ multi- inning

 

6.) Anderson > rotation/ multi-inning

7.) Chacín > rotation/ multi-inning

8.) Nelson > rotation/ multi-inning

 

I think all 8 at some point in time this year will pitch in the rotation and multi-inning in the pen.

 

Bullpen by June 15:

 

- multi-inning(2-4)

- multi-inning(2-4)

- multi-inning(2-4)

 

Guerra

Claudio

Jackson/Albers

Jeffress/IL/Albers/Perdomo

Hader

[Fear The Chorizo]

I think this conversation becomes more interesting once Nelson is ready to come back to Milwaukee and Burnes has demonstrated there's nothing left for him to prove in AAA as a starter...it's likely there will be another IL stint or two among the pile of starting pitcher options we're discussing, but regardless the makeup of the MLB pitching staff will remain in flux moving forward.

[FVBrewerFan]

FTC:

 

Now that I have a better idea of what YOU mean by piggy-backing, I really don't understand why you would want to do this. You mention "I would want the starter to go at least 5." If that's the case, you have eliminated the best argument for piggybacking- which is having the starter avoid going through the order the 3rd time, or even the 2nd time.

 

If you just want the starter to go as deep as possible, why would you tie Peralta to him? Based on game situation you could use literally anyone, so why handcuff yourself to Peralta? Then you want to waste his innings in a simulated game if he needs to get pulled for a PH? Why in the world would you do that? And yes, that scenario where he would need to be pulled for a PH would happen far more often than not. Meaning he would pitch 2 innings, not 4.That's what happens when you try to create a rigid piggyback, it creates these scenarios that make no sense. It's being cute just for the sake of it, and not adding any value.

 

(And you're proposing they do this with Peralta now, so not sure what a possible DH in the future has to do with anything.)

[FVBrewerFan]

1.) Burnes/ multi-inning

2.) Woodruff/ multi-inning

3.) Peralta/ multi-inning

Crew is going to pitch them in the rotation as long as they are progressing.

 

4.) Davies > rotation/ multi-inning

5.) Gio > rotation/ multi- inning

 

6.) Anderson > rotation/ multi-inning

7.) Chacín > rotation/ multi-inning

8.) Nelson > rotation/ multi-inning

 

I think all 8 at some point in time this year will pitch in the rotation and multi-inning in the pen.

 

Bullpen by June 15:

 

- multi-inning(2-4)

- multi-inning(2-4)

- multi-inning(2-4)

 

Guerra

Claudio

Jackson/Albers

Jeffress/IL/Albers/Perdomo

Hader

 

 

Hard time following what all of that means, tbh. But if you're suggesting all these guys are going to bounce between the rotation and the pen....no. That's not gong to happen.

[markedman5]

Freddy starting Thursday

 

CC isn't saying yet how this impacts anyone else

[True Blue Brew Crew]

[Fear The Chorizo]

FTC:

 

Now that I have a better idea of what YOU mean by piggy-backing, I really don't understand why you would want to do this. You mention "I would want the starter to go at least 5." If that's the case, you have eliminated the best argument for piggybacking- which is having the starter avoid going through the order the 3rd time, or even the 2nd time.

 

If you just want the starter to go as deep as possible, why would you tie Peralta to him? Based on game situation you could use literally anyone, so why handcuff yourself to Peralta? Then you want to waste his innings in a simulated game if he needs to get pulled for a PH? Why in the world would you do that? And yes, that scenario where he would need to be pulled for a PH would happen far more often than not. Meaning he would pitch 2 innings, not 4.That's what happens when you try to create a rigid piggyback, it creates these scenarios that make no sense. It's being cute just for the sake of it, and not adding any value.

 

(And you're proposing they do this with Peralta now, so not sure what a possible DH in the future has to do with anything.)

 

 

Because part of the benefit I see with my approach is it would largely give the rest of the key bullpen guys a built in day of rest each time through the rotation - where I think this idea has merit is if you have a bunch of starters who are so-so, you can try to give 2 of them every opportunity to combine logging a full 9 innings without needing more relievers to make appearances. IMO, that gives the regular bullpen more time to rest/stay fresh and be more effective during the other 4 games across the rotation.

 

Again, I'm not trying to be specific with just Peralta teaming up with Chacin, I was trying to best answer the questions/scenarios you asked earlier - Maybe the solution is to team one of the young righties with Gio to have a righty/lefty situation. Maybe that's how Nelson gets reacclimated to the MLB rotation. I do think Peralta would be a good candidate for this considering he tends to rack up high pitch counts routinely...so just giving him a start basically guarantees the bullpen is going to need to pick up alot of outs later in that game anyway. Right now the problem is that the same can be said for just about all 5 starters, even with things stabilizing a bit. IMO, the pen isn't nearly strong enough at this point in the season to continue relying on them so heavily.

 

To me the best argument for piggybacking is when you have a roster full of starters you can lean on to get more outs - and a limited supply of quality pen options you don't want to run into the ground before the AS break. Going to a 6 man rotation basically handcuffs the bullpen by not having an extra long man out there, while just sticking with a traditional 5 man rotation would provide an extra long man temporarily - but if there's an injury or sustained poor performance 3-4 weeks from now, your MLB long men in the pen wouldn't be able to just pick up a few starts and give you those same 5+ IP.

 

The DH item I mentioned has to do with removing any late game substitution scenarios where a pitcher needs to get pulled for a pinch hitter - one of your scenarios talked about what happens when a pitcher's spot comes up in the batting order. A DH eliminates that strategy ?, which is exactly why Tampa Bay is effectively taking this approach. I'd argue more often than not if the combination of # times through the order and a pitcher's spot due up in the lineup are both factored in, the # of times a piggy backed starter would have to get pulled due to a late inning pinch hit situation would be pretty small.

[Brew crew 92]

1.) Burnes/ multi-inning

2.) Woodruff/ multi-inning

3.) Peralta/ multi-inning

Crew is going to pitch them in the rotation as long as they are progressing.

 

4.) Davies > rotation/ multi-inning

5.) Gio > rotation/ multi- inning

 

6.) Anderson > rotation/ multi-inning

7.) Chacín > rotation/ multi-inning

8.) Nelson > rotation/ multi-inning

 

I think all 8 at some point in time this year will pitch in the rotation and multi-inning in the pen.

 

Bullpen by June 15:

 

- multi-inning(2-4)

- multi-inning(2-4)

- multi-inning(2-4)

 

Guerra

Claudio

Jackson/Albers

Jeffress/IL/Albers/Perdomo

Hader

 

 

Hard time following what all of that means, tbh. But if you're suggesting all these guys are going to bounce between the rotation and the pen....no. That's not gong to happen.

 

All 8 of our starters will pitch out of the pen at some point the rest of this year, if there is one that doesn’t it’s Davies. Innings for Nelson Burnes Woody Peralta and maybe Davies will have to be managed.

 

Bullpen by June 15:

 

1.) multi-inning arm(2-4) Anderson?

2.) multi-inning arm(2-4) Gio?

3.) multi-inning arm(2-4) Chacín?

4.) Guerra

5.) Claudio

6.) Jackson or Albers

7.) Jeffress or jj on the IL or Perdomo

8.) Hader

[FVBrewerFan]

Yea, thats not happening. Davies and Chacin arent going to the pen. Gio either for that matter. Nelson if he ever makes it back will be one or the other, probably starter. 3 young guys, just depends on opportunity. If everyone else is productive in the rotation then they may be in the pen.

 

They wont put guys in the pen to limit innings, that can be done with a skipped start, trip to the IL, etc. So no, I dont see some master plan where everyone does both.

[True Blue Brew Crew]

I'm not being that rigid. I'm just talking about my perfect game that I look forward to unfolding someday. The Brewers would only ever deploy 2 starters to split 9 innings in a game they had a comfortable lead. The most common blueprint once they embrace the idea of utilizing starters in the pen and vise-versa is 3-5 innings from an IOG, followed by 2-4 innings by another starter-like pitcher, with a Hader-like pitcher locking down the final 1-2 innings. If the lead is 3 or 4 going into the 8th, hopefully they are comfortable with someone like Guerra covering the final two. That's a common scenario I see going forward. I'm just most excited about a game which 2 pitchers cover 9 and neither goes deeply through the batting order a 3rd time through. I love watching a pitcher throw a complete game as much as anyone else. I also have come to grips that it is damn near impossible the way Counsell is risk averse. So for me 2 starters teaming up to go nine will be the "new" complete game.

 

Could it come on the very night that I wished it? Will Counsell let Junior go 3? C'mon Guerra, take this thing home.

[tmwiese55]

haha. I was just coming to make the same joke. Dare I say we call this a piggy back? haha. Either way, I think the key difference is looking for situations to make this work, which would be possible with more multi inning guys, as opposed to as if they're planning it before games. Curious if this happened last year at all? I'd guess at some point we had a game with a starter go 6-7 and Burnes or someone finished it but of course not sure.

 

Back to the Bucks game.

[True Blue Brew Crew]

haha. I was just coming to make the same joke. Dare I say we call this a piggy back? haha. Either way, I think the key difference is looking for situations to make this work, which would be possible with more multi inning guys, as opposed to as if they're planning it before games. Curious if this happened last year at all? I'd guess at some point we had a game with a starter go 6-7 and Burnes or someone finished it but of course not sure.

 

Back to the Bucks game.

 

Not sure if it happened last year but I'd sure like to see it a lot more going forward. They have the pieces to do it. Just need to get them all back on the MLB roster.

[True Blue Brew Crew]

Dangit. Someday.

[MrTPlush]

Dangit. Someday.

 

Today is good proof why it is almost impossible. You would need two guys to have absolute dominating games and basically be trouble free. First guy struggles and you go to the second guy...then he is in too early and a third guy at minimum will eventually be needed.

 

Why would you be so insistent on using two guys when you usually have really good bullpen arms? It just doesn’t make a ton of sense and that is why in today’s game of going against the grain you still have normal starters.

 

Can guys like Guerra go 3 innings? Sure, but planning to piggy back? No...other than if you know your main guy will be limited on a pitch count. You aren’t going to intentionally pair guys long term.

[True Blue Brew Crew]

Dangit. Someday.

 

Today is good proof why it is almost impossible. You would need two guys to have absolute dominating games and basically be trouble free. First guy struggles and you go to the second guy...then he is in too early and a third guy at minimum will eventually be needed.

 

Why would you be so insistent on using two guys when you usually have really good bullpen arms? It just doesn’t make a ton of sense and that is why in today’s game of going against the grain you still have normal starters.

 

Can guys like Guerra go 3 innings? Sure, but planning to piggy back? No...other than if you know your main guy will be limited on a pitch count. You aren’t going to intentionally pair guys long term.

 

Slow down. Let's not misconstrue what I said. I said the typical blueprint would be 3 guys just like what happened tonight. Two starter-like pitchers cover 7-8 innings between them and a Hader-like pitcher wraps things up. I merely said the dream scenario going forward was simply using two. And it would be dependent on how big the lead was. And having two long pitchers covering 9 innings is far from an "almost impossible" task.