Peralta returns to the rotation this week?

[True Blue Brew Crew]

I'm with True Blue Brew Crew on this one. It's not rigid, and it's not the entire rotation, and it's not meant to supplant or eliminate pitchers who can throw 110 pitches and get through 7+ innings. Aces will still be aces--and even guys who are not aces but are cruising through the 5th, 6th and 7th innings will be allowed to do so.

 

Using more traditional terminology, all it is doing is adding a couple more long relievers to the bullpen and having a slightly quicker hook for starting pitchers.

 

There is a psychology that goes along with these traditional roles and terminologies that is not helpful to anybody. Definitively calling somebody a "long reliever" rather than a "starter" generally has negative connotations associated with it. There are a lot of guys in this category--who are good enough to pitch 3-5 innings very effectively but not quite good enough to consistently pitch 6-7 innings consistently. If you get 3 consistent starters who CAN consistently get to the 7th inning, great--do that. However, if you can then get 5 other guys who are more in the 3-5 inning category, then you use them that way, and you still have 5 spots left on the pitching staff for traditional 1+ inning late game relievers (or high leverage middle game relievers).

 

It's not rigid though in that if one of your better starters has to get pulled in the 4th, so be it, and if one of your 3-5 inning guys is cruising into the 7th, let him cruise.

 

Yes, thank you. It's anything but rigid, just like the model to have the starter go 7 followed by a set-up man and closer isn't anything more than a daily goal. It's something you hope for but adjust accordingly. And the dual starter model isn't an equal dose of both by target or plan. If one guy gives you 5, the other might only throw 2-3. The guy who goes 5 will be down for more days than the guy who goes 2-3. Maybe they flip roles and reverse their order of appearance if they happen to throw in the same next game. (The one who started last time relieves, while the one who came out of the pen, gets to start his next time out.) People are used to a set 5-man rotation and I get that. This completely scraps that and wouldn't have a set schedule. Which is probably why it's so hard to pin down. You play matchups and availability. And you cover for the shorter starts by having more starter-like pitchers. They're already shortening these starts, they may as well have a staff constructed to better handle it. And the upside gained is taking advantage of pitchers' general dominance over batters when avoiding a 3rd look on a given day.

[True Blue Brew Crew]

Who was the guy like 10 - 15 years ago that only pitched well at night? I think we called him The Vampire?

 

Valerio Santos

 

Victor Santos.

 

That's it, thank you!

[True Blue Brew Crew]

Interesting they're bringing him back to pitch the day game Thursday.

 

His only good start of 2019 came during a day game.

 

Last year his OPS against during day games was .522 compared to .664 in night games.

 

Granted we're talking about super small, noisy samples all around but maybe there is something there with Freddy's fastball deception that plays up during the day.

 

Colorado too. Here's hoping that he pitches with the same brilliance that he did when he debuted against the Rockies in a day game.

[Tbadder]

I don’t understand why Peralta is getting the start? He simply doesn’t deserve it. Put him with the Missions and tell him “you’re up again when you can be consistent with the curve and throw lefties a change up.” He’s obviously the future, but that future is down the line.

[FVBrewerFan]

I'm with True Blue Brew Crew on this one. It's not rigid, and it's not the entire rotation, and it's not meant to supplant or eliminate pitchers who can throw 110 pitches and get through 7+ innings. Aces will still be aces--and even guys who are not aces but are cruising through the 5th, 6th and 7th innings will be allowed to do so.

 

Using more traditional terminology, all it is doing is adding a couple more long relievers to the bullpen and having a slightly quicker hook for starting pitchers.

 

There is a psychology that goes along with these traditional roles and terminologies that is not helpful to anybody. Definitively calling somebody a "long reliever" rather than a "starter" generally has negative connotations associated with it. There are a lot of guys in this category--who are good enough to pitch 3-5 innings very effectively but not quite good enough to consistently pitch 6-7 innings consistently. If you get 3 consistent starters who CAN consistently get to the 7th inning, great--do that. However, if you can then get 5 other guys who are more in the 3-5 inning category, then you use them that way, and you still have 5 spots left on the pitching staff for traditional 1+ inning late game relievers (or high leverage middle game relievers).

 

 

 

It's not rigid though in that if one of your better starters has to get pulled in the 4th, so be it, and if one of your 3-5 inning guys is cruising into the 7th, let him cruise.

 

Yes, thank you. It's anything but rigid, just like the model to have the starter go 7 followed by a set-up man and closer isn't anything more than a daily goal. It's something you hope for but adjust accordingly. And the dual starter model isn't an equal dose of both by target or plan. If one guy gives you 5, the other might only throw 2-3. The guy who goes 5 will be down for more days than the guy who goes 2-3. Maybe they flip roles and reverse their order of appearance if they happen to throw in the same next game. (The one who started last time relieves, while the one who came out of the pen, gets to start his next time out.) People are used to a set 5-man rotation and I get that. This completely scraps that and wouldn't have a set schedule. Which is probably why it's so hard to pin down. You play matchups and availability. And you cover for the shorter starts by having more starter-like pitchers. They're already shortening these starts, they may as well have a staff constructed to better handle it. And the upside gained is taking advantage of pitchers' general dominance over batters when avoiding a 3rd look on a given day.

 

I admit I could be wrong, but it seems like you explain your plan differently every time. They're not going to flip SP and reliever roles back and forth. Why? They haven't, are not, and won't do anything close to this scheme. I really don't understand what is being acccomplished here, other than making things way more complicated than necessary. More relief pitchers who can go multiple innings? Sure. Every team is trying to do that. But making the rotation a merr-go-round, not so much.

[RollieTime]

I'm with True Blue Brew Crew on this one. It's not rigid, and it's not the entire rotation, and it's not meant to supplant or eliminate pitchers who can throw 110 pitches and get through 7+ innings. Aces will still be aces--and even guys who are not aces but are cruising through the 5th, 6th and 7th innings will be allowed to do so.

 

Using more traditional terminology, all it is doing is adding a couple more long relievers to the bullpen and having a slightly quicker hook for starting pitchers.

 

There is a psychology that goes along with these traditional roles and terminologies that is not helpful to anybody. Definitively calling somebody a "long reliever" rather than a "starter" generally has negative connotations associated with it. There are a lot of guys in this category--who are good enough to pitch 3-5 innings very effectively but not quite good enough to consistently pitch 6-7 innings consistently. If you get 3 consistent starters who CAN consistently get to the 7th inning, great--do that. However, if you can then get 5 other guys who are more in the 3-5 inning category, then you use them that way, and you still have 5 spots left on the pitching staff for traditional 1+ inning late game relievers (or high leverage middle game relievers).

 

 

 

It's not rigid though in that if one of your better starters has to get pulled in the 4th, so be it, and if one of your 3-5 inning guys is cruising into the 7th, let him cruise.

 

Yes, thank you. It's anything but rigid, just like the model to have the starter go 7 followed by a set-up man and closer isn't anything more than a daily goal. It's something you hope for but adjust accordingly. And the dual starter model isn't an equal dose of both by target or plan. If one guy gives you 5, the other might only throw 2-3. The guy who goes 5 will be down for more days than the guy who goes 2-3. Maybe they flip roles and reverse their order of appearance if they happen to throw in the same next game. (The one who started last time relieves, while the one who came out of the pen, gets to start his next time out.) People are used to a set 5-man rotation and I get that. This completely scraps that and wouldn't have a set schedule. Which is probably why it's so hard to pin down. You play matchups and availability. And you cover for the shorter starts by having more starter-like pitchers. They're already shortening these starts, they may as well have a staff constructed to better handle it. And the upside gained is taking advantage of pitchers' general dominance over batters when avoiding a 3rd look on a given day.

 

I admit I could be wrong, but it seems like you explain your plan differently every time. They're not going to flip SP and reliever roles back and forth. Why? They haven't, are not, and won't do anything close to this scheme. I really don't understand what is being acccomplished here, other than making things way more complicated than necessary. More relief pitchers who can go multiple innings? Sure. Every team is trying to do that. But making the rotation a merr-go-round, not so much.

 

Here is a quote from “The Future of Pitching” thread.

 

Josh Hader is showing the folly in having your best arms impact only 1 of every 5 games. You say there will always be room for a Scherzer every 5 days. I say there's even more use for a Scherzer locking down a game every 2-3 days. Not in the sense of being used as a 1 inning closer. But to be used as a guy you introduce into a game you have the lead to shut down the heart of a lineup and then stay on through to the last out. Today's aces will be future guys who come into games your team has the lead and then cover the final 3-4 innings. Instead of 30-35 starts, they can impact 60 games.

 

It is full of him verifying that pitchers should be used in totally unconventional ways. He was saying to take the GREATEST pitcher in the game and using him to finish games. And now he’s completely changing it and saying that pitchers will go 7 innings sometimes. Let me get this straight. So if a pitcher is struggling, he gets pulled early. But if he does well, he pitches 7 innings? That’s literally how baseball is played today! Good thing we heard about this new revolutionary tactic in baseball all offseason! You already backtracked on everything you said and want people to believe you’re still ahead of the game with your ideas. Everybody needs to go read that thread

[Oxy]

I admit I could be wrong, but it seems like you explain your plan differently every time. They're not going to flip SP and reliever roles back and forth. Why? They haven't, are not, and won't do anything close to this scheme. I really don't understand what is being acccomplished here, other than making things way more complicated than necessary. More relief pitchers who can go multiple innings? Sure. Every team is trying to do that. But making the rotation a merr-go-round, not so much.

 

I'd say making the traditional 4th and 5th spots in the rotation a merry-go-round is fine provided nobody seems to be stepping up their game. It looks like Davies and Chacin have their spots nailed down. Great. After that, we are still in search mode for those other starting spots, and I think it makes perfect sense to use a combination of Anderson, Woodruff, Peralta, Gonzalez, and Burnes (and perhaps Nelson later in the year if need be) for those spots. Ideally, at least one guy steps up and solidifies their spot the way that Davies has done this year. Heck, maybe 3 guys will step up and we'll have a traditional 5 man staff. If that happens, let it happen, but don't force guys to struggle through the 4th and 5th inning when you have another capable multi-inning guy in the bullpen.

[FVBrewerFan]

I admit I could be wrong, but it seems like you explain your plan differently every time. They're not going to flip SP and reliever roles back and forth. Why? They haven't, are not, and won't do anything close to this scheme. I really don't understand what is being acccomplished here, other than making things way more complicated than necessary. More relief pitchers who can go multiple innings? Sure. Every team is trying to do that. But making the rotation a merr-go-round, not so much.

 

I'd say making the traditional 4th and 5th spots in the rotation a merry-go-round is fine provided nobody seems to be stepping up their game. It looks like Davies and Chacin have their spots nailed down. Great. After that, we are still in search mode for those other starting spots, and I think it makes perfect sense to use a combination of Anderson, Woodruff, Peralta, Gonzalez, and Burnes (and perhaps Nelson later in the year if need be) for those spots. Ideally, at least one guy steps up and solidifies their spot the way that Davies has done this year. Heck, maybe 3 guys will step up and we'll have a traditional 5 man staff. If that happens, let it happen, but don't force guys to struggle through the 4th and 5th inning when you have another capable multi-inning guy in the bullpen.

 

That's exactly what they're doing now. You don't need tandems, piggyback, swap starter and long reliever every week, 4 man rotation, 6 man rotation, or any other novelty mentioned here. You can do some of that in September for specific reasons when the roster expands, and the make-up of your pitching staff at the time.

 

This whole concept of blurring the lines between starter and long reliever is nothing more than making relievers feel better that they're not a starter.

[Oxy]

 

That's exactly what they're doing now. You don't need tandems, piggyback, swap starter and long reliever every week, 4 man rotation, 6 man rotation, or any other novelty mentioned here. You can do some of that in September for specific reasons when the roster expands, and the make-up of your pitching staff at the time.

 

This whole concept of blurring the lines between starter and long reliever is nothing more than making relievers feel better that they're not a starter.

 

I'm not as extreme as TBBC, but it could be used as an actual strategy though--taking advantage of a market inefficiency by specifically acquiring pitchers who are good to very good 2 times through an order but horrible during the 3rd time through the order. Currently, most of those types of guys end up as AAAA type starters or long relievers/mop-up guys in the bullpen--but if you purposely acquired or groomed 4-6 of them for that type of role then they could very effectively and very cheaply cover the innings normally pitched by 2 (or maybe 2.5) spots in a 5 man rotation. Playing the match-ups might mean flip-flopping certain guys who begin the game, effectively eliminating the traditional start (rest 4 days), start (rest 4 days) routine for those type of guys.

[Fear The Chorizo]

 

That's exactly what they're doing now. You don't need tandems, piggyback, swap starter and long reliever every week, 4 man rotation, 6 man rotation, or any other novelty mentioned here. You can do some of that in September for specific reasons when the roster expands, and the make-up of your pitching staff at the time.

 

This whole concept of blurring the lines between starter and long reliever is nothing more than making relievers feel better that they're not a starter.

 

I'm not as extreme as TBBC, but it could be used as an actual strategy though--taking advantage of a market inefficiency by specifically acquiring pitchers who are good to very good 2 times through an order but horrible during the 3rd time through the order. Currently, most of those types of guys end up as AAAA type starters or long relievers/mop-up guys in the bullpen--but if you purposely acquired or groomed 4-6 of them for that type of role then they could very effectively and very cheaply cover the innings normally pitched by 2 (or maybe 2.5) spots in a 5 man rotation. Playing the match-ups might mean flip-flopping certain guys who begin the game, effectively eliminating the traditional start (rest 4 days), start (rest 4 days) routine for those type of guys.

 

In a way they have been doing this - however they've been able to do so without having to carry all these guys on the 25 man gameday roster up to this point by either optioning them or due to IL/Rehab stints in the case of Nelson and Peralta. While using minor league options can be done to a point, it will be interesting to see what arms get sent down to the minors when Nelson and eventually Burnes return - I doubt they would exchange places with guys currently established in the rotation, which means guys that are stretched out to make starts will be replacing the bottom end of their bullpen. Once that happens, I'd look for a pair of starters like Gio/Nelson, Nelson/Anderson, Peralta/Burnes, or something similar to handle most of the outs in a game.

[FVBrewerFan]

 

That's exactly what they're doing now. You don't need tandems, piggyback, swap starter and long reliever every week, 4 man rotation, 6 man rotation, or any other novelty mentioned here. You can do some of that in September for specific reasons when the roster expands, and the make-up of your pitching staff at the time.

 

This whole concept of blurring the lines between starter and long reliever is nothing more than making relievers feel better that they're not a starter.

 

I'm not as extreme as TBBC, but it could be used as an actual strategy though--taking advantage of a market inefficiency by specifically acquiring pitchers who are good to very good 2 times through an order but horrible during the 3rd time through the order. Currently, most of those types of guys end up as AAAA type starters or long relievers/mop-up guys in the bullpen--but if you purposely acquired or groomed 4-6 of them for that type of role then they could very effectively and very cheaply cover the innings normally pitched by 2 (or maybe 2.5) spots in a 5 man rotation. Playing the match-ups might mean flip-flopping certain guys who begin the game, effectively eliminating the traditional start (rest 4 days), start (rest 4 days) routine for those type of guys.

 

Pitchers who are very good 2 times the order, bad after that are not AAAA pitchers. They are a huge % of starting pitchers in MLB.

[Oxy]

 

Pitchers who are very good 2 times the order, bad after that are not AAAA pitchers. They are a huge % of starting pitchers in MLB.

 

 

Right. And most of them are young guys who teams are hoping improve and take the next step into becoming front half of the rotation starters who can go deeper into games. When they don't take that step in their first 2 years or so, they wash out (AAAA) or become long relievers/mop-up guys, and then a new batch of young guys step in that teams hope will become front half of the rotation starters...the cycle keeps repeating. However, if you stop forcing them to go 6+ innings and are happy with 2 guys who can go 3-4 innings, maybe they won't wash out. That type of pitcher doesn't traditionally have a label, so it is a pretty new idea.

[Brew crew 92]

 

That's exactly what they're doing now. You don't need tandems, piggyback, swap starter and long reliever every week, 4 man rotation, 6 man rotation, or any other novelty mentioned here. You can do some of that in September for specific reasons when the roster expands, and the make-up of your pitching staff at the time.

 

This whole concept of blurring the lines between starter and long reliever is nothing more than making relievers feel better that they're not a starter.

 

I'm not as extreme as TBBC, but it could be used as an actual strategy though--taking advantage of a market inefficiency by specifically acquiring pitchers who are good to very good 2 times through an order but horrible during the 3rd time through the order. Currently, most of those types of guys end up as AAAA type starters or long relievers/mop-up guys in the bullpen--but if you purposely acquired or groomed 4-6 of them for that type of role then they could very effectively and very cheaply cover the innings normally pitched by 2 (or maybe 2.5) spots in a 5 man rotation. Playing the match-ups might mean flip-flopping certain guys who begin the game, effectively eliminating the traditional start (rest 4 days), start (rest 4 days) routine for those type of guys.

 

In a way they have been doing this - however they've been able to do so without having to carry all these guys on the 25 man gameday roster up to this point by either optioning them or due to IL/Rehab stints in the case of Nelson and Peralta. While using minor league options can be done to a point, it will be interesting to see what arms get sent down to the minors when Nelson and eventually Burnes return - I doubt they would exchange places with guys currently established in the rotation, which means guys that are stretched out to make starts will be replacing the bottom end of their bullpen. Once that happens, I'd look for a pair of starters like Gio/Nelson, Nelson/Anderson, Peralta/Burnes, or something similar to handle most of the outs in a game.

 

Peralta’s return tomorrow will send a current starter to the pen, CC said 2-3 starts in AAA for Burnes, so he’s back next week, sending another starter to the pen.

 

I doubt the crew sends anybody down, unless Burnes or Peralta get shelled.

 

The month of May’s bullpen should look like this:

 

Multi-inning arm > Anderson?

Multi-inning arm > Gio?

Guerra

Albers

Jeffress

Claudio

Jackson

Hader

 

This pen is getting stronger, the wild card is jeffress, hopefully he gets stronger and can help and not hurt.

[True Blue Brew Crew]

It is full of him verifying that pitchers should be used in totally unconventional ways. He was saying to take the GREATEST pitcher in the game and using him to finish games. And now he’s completely changing it and saying that pitchers will go 7 innings sometimes. Let me get this straight. So if a pitcher is struggling, he gets pulled early. But if he does well, he pitches 7 innings? That’s literally how baseball is played today! Good thing we heard about this new revolutionary tactic in baseball all offseason! You already backtracked on everything you said and want people to believe you’re still ahead of the game with your ideas. Everybody needs to go read that thread

 

You might want to consider that possibly your own reading comprehension is the problem. The only time I talked about a pitcher going 7 innings is when referring to the current traditional model. This is how the nonsense I get called out for keeps spreading. From people re-stating what I've said incorrectly like you just did. Thanks, I really appreciate it!

[tmwiese55]

Sure seems like it would've made sense to give him a start or two in AAA before tossing him right into the big leagues. I'm usually not one to nitpick every decision they make but this one looks like a clear mistake to rush him back. He wasn't very good before he got hurt, why not let him have a couple games to get sharp since the other guys had finally been doing ok.

[Ron Robinsons Beard]

 

[True Blue Brew Crew]

Lol, that GIF didn't mean what you think it did. But I'm sad to see Freddy struggle nonetheless.

[Ron Robinsons Beard]

Lol, that GIF didn't mean what you think it did. But I'm sad to see Freddy struggle nonetheless.

 

My GIF game also needs to work on it's secondary stuff.