Report: Sox, 7 other Teams Interested in Takashi Saito

[Chisoxfn]

I posted the stats a few days ago, the pen was not anywhere near awful last year, they were middle of the pack, more or less. And even with no changes, the only significant person out the door is Dotel, while we have the likes of Pena and Hudson in the wings, AND we had more people than not last year who pitched well below their career lines (Thornton being the only one who did better than his usual, and DJ the only one who was more or less the same). How does that translate to "worse pens in all of baseball"?

 

Linebrink is a huge question mark of course. And like I said, I'd be all for getting Saito. But this idea I have seen touted on SoxTalk that the pen is so awful, is just not supported by any facts I can find. In fact, I think if you add Saito, a pen of Jenks closing, Carrasco in long relief, and setup being handled by some combo of Thornton/Saito/Linebrink/Pena/Hudson, has a good shot at being one of the better ones in baseball. Even without Saito, I think its decent.

 

Sign Saito, great. But this need is far, far below the needs we have at OF and DH, who play every day and where we literally have no one.

See my post below. The Sox were in the bottom 3rd of all key categories relieving the pen in 2009 and in the 2nd half of the season, I believe I had read (although I can't find it this second) that they were amongst the 3 worse pens in all of baseball.

[scenario]

During the second half, the Sox bullpen was an embarrassment.

 

I'd sign Saito in a heartbeat if the price isn't out of line.

 

Much better to go into the season with greater depth/strength in the bullpen IMO.

 

And I don't think signing him is a big enough cost item to get in the way of addressing our DH/OF needs.

 

So why not? Go git 'em Kenny!

 

 

[NorthSideSox72]

See my post below. The Sox were in the bottom 3rd of all key categories relieving the pen in 2009 and in the 2nd half of the season, I believe I had read (although I can't find it this second) that they were amongst the 3 worse pens in all of baseball.

I'll show again how this is not the case. Results-wise, as a pen, they were mid-road in ERA, and mid-road in save %. So as a group, looking at how many earned runs they gave up and how many leads they blew, which is what matter most here, they were average:

 

ERA: 4.06 (8th in AL, 18th in MLB)

SV%: 67% (7th in AL, 12th in MLB)

 

WHIP and AvgA are great for looking at individual relievers, because you need to get rid of the effect of other pitchers. They are also not as good at taking team defense out of the picture, which we want to do here, to do an independent audit. But here, talking about the whole pen, results is what matters. And their results were not bad, though also not particularly good - and that in a year when, as I said, the majority of the pen was pitching below what their careers would dictate they'd normally do. To me, that indicates the pen is likely to be at least average again, even with no changes.

 

But of course, bullpens are finicky things, which is yet another reason to not invest tons of money in it, as opposed to areas where positive impact can be more readily assumed.

 

The only other key number I'd want to look at that I can't readily find is inherited runners scored. That is less of a factor than the two stats I gave, but still a good overall measure - so I'd be curious to see that, if anyone has it.

[NorthSideSox72]

OK, just found it. In inherited runners scored, the Sox gave up 81 - 17th in Baseball. Again, middle of the road.

 

[Jordan4life_2007]

I'll show again how this is not the case. Results-wise, as a pen, they were mid-road in ERA, and mid-road in save %. So as a group, looking at how many earned runs they gave up and how many leads they blew, which is what matter most here, they were average:

 

ERA: 4.06 (8th in AL, 18th in MLB)

SV%: 67% (7th in AL, 12th in MLB)

 

WHIP and AvgA are great for looking at individual relievers, because you need to get rid of the effect of other pitchers. They are also not as good at taking team defense out of the picture, which we want to do here, to do an independent audit. But here, talking about the whole pen, results is what matters. And their results were not bad, though also not particularly good - and that in a year when, as I said, the majority of the pen was pitching below what their careers would dictate they'd normally do. To me, that indicates the pen is likely to be at least average again, even with no changes.

 

But of course, bullpens are finicky things, which is yet another reason to not invest tons of money in it, as opposed to areas where positive impact can be more readily assumed.

 

The only other key number I'd want to look at that I can't readily find is inherited runners scored. That is less of a factor than the two stats I gave, but still a good overall measure - so I'd be curious to see that, if anyone has it.

 

IIRC, the Sox' bullpen FIP (fielding independent pitching) was 3.92. That was the 6th lowest in all of baseball. So that suggests with a little better team defense (we were arguably the worst defensive team in 2009) our overall bullpen ERA would've been considerably lower. The bullpen LOB% was 74.3. Good for 11th in all of baseball. Overall, I'd say the bullpen was slightly below average. Nothing like the disaster that was 2007. But I agree with you. I've had it with relievers and their volatility. People that are suggesting we go out and spend legitimate change to upgrade the bullpen are the same ones that are criticizing the team for overpaying for Linebrink/Dotel. I'm content going into 2010 with Bobby (assuming we don't trade him), Linebrink, Thornton, D.J., Pena and some combination of Hudson, Nunez, Link or Santeliz. If we can get a guy like Saito for cheap, I'm all for it. But whatever financial flexibility we have left should go into upgrading the OF/DH.

[Chisoxfn]

OK, just found it. In inherited runners scored, the Sox gave up 81 - 17th in Baseball. Again, middle of the road.

That is the thing, ERA and SV % are probably the least of my concern in terms of relief stats. The opponents BAAVG, Bullpen ERA+, WHIP, Inherted Runners Scored all are to me what is most important. If you do good at those things, the other stats will almost surely follow.

 

The Sox were poor in all of the key relief indicators. The best stat they had was the inherited Runners stat and being 17th in baseball is not acceptable. If you plan on being a playoff team, you better have a good bullpen. Having a middle of the pack pen is unacceptable.

 

Adjust for the 2nd half splits and you'd see the Sox pen was in no way acceptable.

[Jordan4life_2007]

That is the thing, ERA and SV % are probably the least of my concern in terms of relief stats. The opponents BAAVG, Bullpen ERA+, WHIP, Inherted Runners Scored all are to me what is most important. If you do good at those things, the other stats will almost surely follow.

 

The Sox were poor in all of the key relief indicators. The best stat they had was the inherited Runners stat and being 17th in baseball is not acceptable. If you plan on being a playoff team, you better have a good bullpen. Having a middle of the pack pen is unacceptable.

 

Adjust for the 2nd half splits and you'd see the Sox pen was in no way acceptable.

 

I don't think northside, or anybody else for that matter, is saying last year's performance was acceptable. But we didn't have the worst bullpen ever either. There were some good and bad (more bad). Point is to go out and try to 'fix' the bullpen every year when it's easily the most volatile position in the game might not be the best course of action. Especially for a team with a limited amount of money to spend and far more pressing concerns. We have on paper arguably the best rotation in the league. 6-7 innings minimum from our starters should be the norm. Making things A LOT easier for the bullpen (think 2005). Our best bet simply might be to hope Linebrink/Jenks bounce back, Pena pitches to his ability (2007), and at least one of our top minor league arms can surprise.

Edited November 30, 2009 by Jordan4life

[Kalapse]

IIRC, the Sox' bullpen FIP (fielding independent pitching) was 3.92. That was the 6th lowest in all of baseball. So that suggests with a little better team defense (we were arguably the worst defensive team in 2009) our overall bullpen ERA would've been considerably lower. The bullpen LOB% was 74.3. Good for 11th in all of baseball. Overall, I'd say the bullpen was slightly below average. Nothing like the disaster that was 2007. But I agree with you. I've had it with relievers and their volatility. People that are suggesting we go out and spend legitimate change to upgrade the bullpen are the same ones that are criticizing the team for overpaying for Linebrink/Dotel. I'm content going into 2010 with Bobby (assuming we don't trade him), Linebrink, Thornton, D.J., Pena and some combination of Hudson, Nunez, Link or Santeliz. If we can get a guy like Saito for cheap, I'm all for it. But whatever financial flexibility we have left should go into upgrading the OF/DH.

This post is very much out of the ordinary for you. Your numbers are sound, their bullpen FIP was indeed 6th lowest in baseball but only 1 of the 5 teams ahead of them was an AL ballclub (Oakland), so the White Sox's bullpen had the 2nd lowest FIP in the AL this is due to their great K/BB (4th best in baseball) and middle of the pack HR/9.

 

You're absolutely right, spending big money on bullpen arms is a losing proposition, rarely does a team shell out an 8 figure deal on a 30+ year old setup man and get anywhere near full return on their investment. Last season 7 years and $27.25M were shelled out to Damaso Marte, Kyle Farnsworth and Juan Cruz, 3 of the 4 highest paid non-closer relief pitcher's in free agency. 2 years ago it was 13 years and $54M for Scott Linebrink, David Riske, Ron Mayhay, Luis Vizcaino and Masa Kobayashi. 3 years ago it was 19 years and $95.3M for the top 6 relievers: Miguel Batista, Danys Baez, Justin Speier, Jamie Walker, Scott Schoeneweis and Chad Bradford.

 

You don't fix a bullpen through high priced free agent middle relievers.

[NorthSideSox72]

I don't think northside, or anybody else for that matter, is saying last year's performance was acceptable. But we didn't have the worst bullpen ever either. There were some good and bad (more bad). Point is to go out and try to 'fix' the bullpen every year when it's easily the most volatile position in the game might not be the best course of action. Especially for a team with a limited amount of money to spend and far more pressing concerns. We have on paper arguably the best rotation in the league. 6-7 innings minimum from our starters should be the norm. Making things A LOT easier for the bullpen (think 2005). Our best bet simply might be to hope Linebrink/Jenks bounce back, Pena pitches to his ability (2007), and at least one of our top minor league arms can surprise.

 

 

This post is very much out of the ordinary for you. Your numbers are sound, their bullpen FIP was indeed 6th lowest in baseball but only 1 of the 5 teams ahead of them was an AL ballclub (Oakland), so the White Sox's bullpen had the 2nd lowest FIP in the AL this is due to their great K/BB (4th best in baseball) and middle of the pack HR/9.

 

You're absolutely right, spending big money on bullpen arms is a losing proposition, rarely does a team shell out an 8 figure deal on a 30+ year old setup man and get anywhere near full return on their investment. Last season 7 years $27.25M were given to Damaso Marte, Kyle Farnsworth and Juan Cruz, 3 of the 4 highest paid non-closer relief pitcher's in free agency. 2 years ago it was 13 years and $54M for Scott Linebrink, David Riske, Ron Mayhay, Luis Vizcaino and Masa Kobayashi. 3 years ago it was 19 years and $95.3M for the top 6 relievers: Miguel Batista, Danys Baez, Justin Speier, Jamie Walker, Scott Schoeneweis and Chad Bradford.

 

You don't fix a bullpen through high priced free agent middle relievers.

 

Both good posts, I agree.

 

And to echo something, I am not saying that having a mid-pack bullpen is somehow ideal. Its not. If you want to be a contender, your pen needs to be above average. What I am saying is what was said above by myself and others - investing in experienced, expensive arms for the pen is a losing proposition, the Sox pen was not nearly as bad as some think it was, individual-focused stats are not that useful when looking at the pen as a whole, there are talented arms in-house to consider (Pena had only part of a season, Hudson looks good, Nunez could be good), and the stats all say that guys like Jenks, and yes even Linebrink, are likely to do better in 2010. Basically, the pen should be a lower priority when you are talking about a limited budget (which the Sox are).