Can the Sox fix the bullpen?

[Eminor3rd]

Yeah there's just so many years of research on pitcher evaluation freely available on the Internet. I'm not trying to be a jerk, but google some stuff. Check out Volos McCracken and DIPS theory as a starting point.

[balfanman]

Another way to look at this is that since Baltimores' rotation was bad their relievers had to pitch more innings (per pitcher). I don't have the stats but the Sox relievers may have pitched as many innings, but used more pitchers to spread the workload. If Baltimores' pen was used often, and were pretty good, they more than likely used the same pitchers over and over again.

 

I said all of that to say that maybe their bullpen arms were overused last year and will not be as effective next year because of this.

[VAfan]

Let me throw some more stats here to sort out the difference between the 32-11 Baltimore pen and the Sox 25-25 pen.

 

Games entered with the lead: Baltimore 218, Sox 219.

 

Games entered with a tie: Baltimore 78, Sox 82.

 

Games entered behind: Baltimore 196, Sox 165.

 

So, Baltimore's bullpen did have more chances to win games, because they entered more games when Baltimore was trailing. But, if they didn't do a better job of holding the other team, Baltimore -- which scored 712 runs to the Sox 748 runs -- wouldn't have been able to win 7 more games in relief.

 

As for the losses in relief, Baltimore entered the game with the lead as often as the Sox bullpen pitchers did, and only slightly fewer times in a tie game. This does not explain the difference in losses -- 11 for Baltimore, 25 for the Sox.

 

Baltimore's pen clearly did a better job of giving the O's a chance to win games, and blew far fewer games. The Sox pen needs to be better in 2013 for us to compete.

[southsider2k5]

Let me throw some more stats here to sort out the difference between the 32-11 Baltimore pen and the Sox 25-25 pen.

 

Games entered with the lead: Baltimore 218, Sox 219.

 

Games entered with a tie: Baltimore 78, Sox 82.

 

Games entered behind: Baltimore 196, Sox 165.

 

So, Baltimore's bullpen did have more chances to win games, because they entered more games when Baltimore was trailing. But, if they didn't do a better job of holding the other team, Baltimore -- which scored 712 runs to the Sox 748 runs -- wouldn't have been able to win 7 more games in relief.

 

As for the losses in relief, Baltimore entered the game with the lead as often as the Sox bullpen pitchers did, and only slightly fewer times in a tie game. This does not explain the difference in losses -- 11 for Baltimore, 25 for the Sox.

 

Baltimore's pen clearly did a better job of giving the O's a chance to win games, and blew far fewer games. The Sox pen needs to be better in 2013 for us to compete.

 

Here is the biggest factor of all. The Orioles were lucky. Their pen will not replicate those results.

[VAfan]

I agree with that -- the pen could have been much better and it includes bigger holes that would be easier to upgrade than those in the rotation/lineup, 3B notwithstanding. I wonder, though, how much of that bullpen performance can be efficiently improved through acquisition, given how volatile RP performance tends to be from year to year. I'm afraid the Sox could pay up big (either in cash or prospects) for a couple guys coming off good years who are nearly as likely to flop as to dominate, when their current pen may not actually be facing much worse odds.

 

This is interesting: http://www.fangraphs.com/leaders.aspx?pos=...=&players=0

 

Just using the Orioles/Sox comparison, their bullpens produced 6.4 and 3.6 WAR, respectively. So, that basically means that those values were the average amount of marginal wins that those teams' bullpens would produce given their numbers in the current run environment. Obviously, the reality is context driven and much was different, as the Orioles pen ended up winning them many more than 6 games. But, numbers-wise, that pen's performance was only a 2-3 wins better than Chicago's on average, which is the way you have to look at it if you want to project success, since you can't predict context.

 

I think what this shows is that the bullpen can really save you or kill you whether it's good or bad, depending on how situations and events play out. This is just an area that's really difficult to predict and thus very risky to invest in. The range of outcomes may be very similar whether the Sox go in with the league-average-ish pen they have now or with a costly one based on guys that were good last year.

 

It's just a scary place to put your resources, and I think I'd be more comfortable rolling this year's crop out than taking that type of a gamble. I'd rather see those resources put toward 3B/C/SP, even if the money won't go quite as far.

 

Appreciate the fangraphs link.

 

I agree about the risk of investing in bullpen arms. Matt Thornton's current contract is a horrible investment, for example. He was great until he signed it. Since then, he hasn't been able to close, and he lost 10 games out of the pen this year.

 

Still, I think if there were a more experienced "closer" available that wouldn't break the bank, he might be the perfect addition. We went into 2011 with Thornton as the closer, and that didn't work. We went into this year with Santiago as the closer, and that didn't work. Reed emerged, but is he really solid? Fangraphs rates him at 0.9 WAR, with Nate Jones and, ironically, Matt Thornton ahead of him.

 

http://www.fangraphs.com/leaders.aspx?pos=...=&players=0

 

I would just like to see the Sox have a real plan. This season the bullpen seemed like an afterthought, and it cost us.

 

I also think Robin didn't do the best job managing them.

[2nd_city_saint787]

Appreciate the fangraphs link.

 

I agree about the risk of investing in bullpen arms. Matt Thornton's current contract is a horrible investment, for example. He was great until he signed it. Since then, he hasn't been able to close, and he lost 10 games out of the pen this year.

 

Still, I think if there were a more experienced "closer" available that wouldn't break the bank, he might be the perfect addition. We went into 2011 with Thornton as the closer, and that didn't work. We went into this year with Santiago as the closer, and that didn't work. Reed emerged, but is he really solid? Fangraphs rates him at 0.9 WAR, with Nate Jones and, ironically, Matt Thornton ahead of him.

 

http://www.fangraphs.com/leaders.aspx?pos=...=&players=0

 

I would just like to see the Sox have a real plan. This season the bullpen seemed like an afterthought, and it cost us.

 

I also think Robin didn't do the best job managing them.

 

 

No surprise there..Like I've said in the past Matt had 2 back to back games (4 games total) where he gave up 9 runs. Past those 4 games he had a 2.29 era in 62 innings.

 

I know thats cherry picking but, its only cherry picking 2.1 innings where he was bad.

Edited November 9, 2012 by 2nd_city_saint787

[southsider2k5]

No surprise there..Like I've said in the past Matt had 2 back to back games (4 games total) where he gave up 9 runs. Past those 4 games he had a 2.29 era in 62 innings.

 

I know thats cherry picking but, its only cherry picking 2.1 innings where he was bad.

 

Thornton becomes an easy target because of his failings as a closer, but in reality, he had a solid season last year. Not great or anything, but outside of closing, he did his job. That being said the loss of velocity is a red flag. Take that, plus his age, and if you can get a decent return for him, I have no problems with moving him.

[Disco72]

Let me throw some more stats here to sort out the difference between the 32-11 Baltimore pen and the Sox 25-25 pen.

 

Games entered with the lead: Baltimore 218, Sox 219.

 

Games entered with a tie: Baltimore 78, Sox 82.

 

Games entered behind: Baltimore 196, Sox 165.

 

So, Baltimore's bullpen did have more chances to win games, because they entered more games when Baltimore was trailing. But, if they didn't do a better job of holding the other team, Baltimore -- which scored 712 runs to the Sox 748 runs -- wouldn't have been able to win 7 more games in relief.

 

As for the losses in relief, Baltimore entered the game with the lead as often as the Sox bullpen pitchers did, and only slightly fewer times in a tie game. This does not explain the difference in losses -- 11 for Baltimore, 25 for the Sox.

 

Baltimore's pen clearly did a better job of giving the O's a chance to win games, and blew far fewer games. The Sox pen needs to be better in 2013 for us to compete.

 

You are making a lot of inferences from that data that the data doesn't actually prove. What if, for example, Baltimore scored more of their runs late in games than early in games? The bullpen, including new whipping boy Matt Thornton, did a pretty decent job this season.

[Jerksticks]

Thornton becomes an easy target because of his failings as a closer, but in reality, he had a solid season last year. Not great or anything, but outside of closing, he did his job. That being said the loss of velocity is a red flag. Take that, plus his age, and if you can get a decent return for him, I have no problems with moving him.

 

The loss of velocity is key to me. He's dead straight 95 now. Huge 2 mph difference.

 

Plus the highly opinionated topic of STONES. When I measure his stones with my special caliper it reads "average to slightly below average". He lost them for a long stretch but also manned up a few times.

 

I think him and Veal should switch roles officially but I'm not sure how that affects chemistry.

 

[2nd_city_saint787]

For 62 innings he had a 2.29 era, me thinks the loss of velocity is not that big a deal.

[caulfield12]

Thornton's just not consistently reliable enough for his money. When you thought who's reliable in the 2nd half, it was pretty limited to Jones and Veal.

 

Veal was perfect for almost the entire season (I think Fielder finally dinged him) at the lowest possible salary.

 

Of course, we all know what happened with Cotts/Politte. Or Dotel and Linebrink (overpaying), on the other side.

 

You have to worry about Reed coming in as the closer, there's no doubt.

 

Jones was erratic but showed potential and has the stuff. Reed's stuff was a bit lacking, for whatever reason.

 

 

Fathom pointed this out pretty consistently throughout the 2nd half of the season, although there seemed to be more of a sense that Ventura was mismanaging the pen as much as they were failing...a little bit of both probably.

 

I know that I highlighted the blown saves statistic quite frequently.

 

 

If there's any team in the majors that we should be trying to emulate, it's the TB Rays, not the Orioles.

 

They (the Orioles) were the "comeback kids," but those bullpen numbers and runs scored/runs against numbers won't hold up year to year. They had incredible numbers in one run games, extra innings, etc.

 

Or just look at the Tigers' bullpen from 2012 vs. Valverde's dominance the prior year. He's gone from 49/49 to the least popular pitcher on the entire roster, maybe the least popular player overall. Not easy to do in just one season.

Edited November 10, 2012 by caulfield12

[Dick Allen]

Thornton's just not consistently reliable enough for his money. When you thought who's reliable in the 2nd half, it was pretty limited to Jones and Veal.

 

Veal was perfect for almost the entire season (I think Fielder finally dinged him) at the lowest possible salary.

 

Of course, we all know what happened with Cotts/Politte. Or Dotel and Linebrink (overpaying), on the other side.

 

You have to worry about Reed coming in as the closer, there's no doubt.

 

Jones was erratic but showed potential and has the stuff. Reed's stuff was a bit lacking, for whatever reason.

 

 

Fathom pointed this out pretty consistently throughout the 2nd half of the season, although there seemed to be more of a sense that Ventura was mismanaging the pen as much as they were failing...a little bit of both probably.

 

I know that I highlighted the blown saves statistic quite frequently.

 

 

If there's any team in the majors that we should be trying to emulate, it's the TB Rays, not the Orioles.

 

They (the Orioles) were the "comeback kids," but those bullpen numbers and runs scored/runs against numbers won't hold up year to year. They had incredible numbers in one run games, extra innings, etc.

 

Or just look at the Tigers' bullpen from 2012 vs. Valverde's dominance the prior year. He's gone from 49/49 to the least popular pitcher on the entire roster, maybe the least popular player overall. Not easy to do in just one season.

You also highlighted how much Nate Jones sucked in 2012 quite frequently. As for Thornton, if a guy who appears in 74 games, has a 3.46 ERA, and has an over 3 to 1 strikeout to walk ratio is the biggest problem with your bullpen, there is nothing to fix.

[YASNY]

You also highlighted how much Nate Jones sucked in 2012 quite frequently. As for Thornton, if a guy who appears in 74 games, has a 3.46 ERA, and has an over 3 to 1 strikeout to walk ratio is the biggest problem with your bullpen, there is nothing to fix.

 

^ This! ... Thornton, however, is a valuable trade chip (I hate to demean people that way but it is what it is) which I think should be explored.