Mark Buehrle

[greg775]

If I have to keep reminding people that the 2008 Rays took their worst-of-all-time bullpen and turned it into a positive in one offseason, I'll keep doing it. So: the 2008 Rays took their worst-of-all-time bullpen and turned it into a positive in one offseason. Bullpens can be quick to shape up.

 

As for team speed, the three LCS teams besides the Royals were 28th, 29th, and 30th in stolen bases, and six of the ten playoff teams were below average at baserunning. The playoffs included both the best baserunning team in the majors (Washington) and the worst (Cardinals). It's nice but not essential.

 

The defensive gap is a real concern and KC will have a very strong defense again next year, especially if they let Aoki go and Dyson sees more time.

 

Yes but aside from closer, our bullpen has been rotten for a long long time. Think of all the lousy relievers the Sox have had since winning the WS cept for closer. And now there is no viable closer either.

[LittleHurt05]

Yes but aside from closer, our bullpen has been rotten for a long long time. Think of all the lousy relievers the Sox have had since winning the WS cept for closer. And now there is no viable closer either.

 

When the Sox won the World Series, they had two lousy relievers as set-up guys too, they just happened to find some pixie dust that year.

[Quin]

Quintana >>> Ventura or Duffy

[shysocks]

Yes but aside from closer, our bullpen has been rotten for a long long time. Think of all the lousy relievers the Sox have had since winning the WS cept for closer. And now there is no viable closer either.

One, you should rework your definition of rotten. From 2005 to 2014 the Sox bullpen ranked 2, 10, 12, 8, 8, 5, 9, 8, 11, and 14 in ERA in the AL. Typically middle of the pack, and that in a stat that puts a team playing in US Cellular Field at a disadvantage.

 

Two, it's beside the point anyway, because from 2005-2007, the three years prior to their turnaround, the Rays bullpen ranked 13th, 12th, and 14th in the AL. The year before that they were 3rd. The year before that they were 8th. The year before that they were 13th.

 

Bullpens are volatile. I know you aren't a stats guy but hear me out on this, it doesn't use any sabermetrics, just a little statistical jargon. From 1998 to 2012 I looked at each AL team's bullpen ERA. I picked those years because the Brewers switched in '98 and the AL had 14 teams the whole time, so it made things easier on me. I compared each bullpen's ERA to its ERA in the previous year and got the R-squared value, which basically tells us how predictable something is. If every team's bullpen finished with the same ERA every year (Yankees 4.25, A's 3.33, Sox 4.00, etc.), that number would be 1.0.

 

Instead, it was .136. That means you can predict about 14% of a bullpen's performance by looking at the previous year; the rest is due to other factors. It means it is extremely difficult to predict how a team's bullpen will do based just on the previous season. I did the same test for starting ERA and got .319. With runs scored, it's .312. There are always teams that surprise in any avenue, like the Sox offense going from dead last to middling from 2013 to 2014, or the starters' ERA going from first to middling from 2005 to 2006. But with bullpens it really happens constantly.

[Chisoxfn]

One, you should rework your definition of rotten. From 2005 to 2014 the Sox bullpen ranked 2, 10, 12, 8, 8, 5, 9, 8, 11, and 14 in ERA in the AL. Typically middle of the pack, and that in a stat that puts a team playing in US Cellular Field at a disadvantage.

 

Two, it's beside the point anyway, because from 2005-2007, the three years prior to their turnaround, the Rays bullpen ranked 13th, 12th, and 14th in the AL. The year before that they were 3rd. The year before that they were 8th. The year before that they were 13th.

 

Bullpens are volatile. I know you aren't a stats guy but hear me out on this, it doesn't use any sabermetrics, just a little statistical jargon. From 1998 to 2012 I looked at each AL team's bullpen ERA. I picked those years because the Brewers switched in '98 and the AL had 14 teams the whole time, so it made things easier on me. I compared each bullpen's ERA to its ERA in the previous year and got the R-squared value, which basically tells us how predictable something is. If every team's bullpen finished with the same ERA every year (Yankees 4.25, A's 3.33, Sox 4.00, etc.), that number would be 1.0.

 

Instead, it was .136. That means you can predict about 14% of a bullpen's performance by looking at the previous year; the rest is due to other factors. It means it is extremely difficult to predict how a team's bullpen will do based just on the previous season. I did the same test for starting ERA and got .319. With runs scored, it's .312. There are always teams that surprise in any avenue, like the Sox offense going from dead last to middling from 2013 to 2014, or the starters' ERA going from first to middling from 2005 to 2006. But with bullpens it really happens constantly.

Bullpen turnover is also generally very high.

[witesoxfan]

Bullpen turnover is also generally very high.

 

This is a big key why.

 

The point isn't that you just stick with the same crappy relievers and expect it to suddenly transform over (as the saying goes, you can't turn chicken s*** into chicken salad). You go out and you get better pitchers, but just be cautious in how you do it. If you're going to spend a lot on a reliever (or relievers), you have to somehow, someway be confident that they are going to be effective for the entirety of that contract. Otherwise, it's best to keep going out and grabbing talented arms and a lot of times just hoping for the best.

[GreenSox]

This is a big key why.

 

The point isn't that you just stick with the same crappy relievers and expect it to suddenly transform over (as the saying goes, you can't turn chicken s*** into chicken salad). You go out and you get better pitchers, but just be cautious in how you do it. If you're going to spend a lot on a reliever (or relievers), you have to somehow, someway be confident that they are going to be effective for the entirety of that contract. Otherwise, it's best to keep going out and grabbing talented arms and a lot of times just hoping for the best.

Career relief pitchers are generally inconsistent. The best thing is to develop your own, and even use future starters as relievers for a year or 2.

For sure, going out and buying that "proven closer" is a game for fools.

Sox will probably have to buy 1 reliever this year, probably from the left side, and pray.

But Petricka and PUtnam were virtual rookies, Guerra's a good reliver. Carroll could so well. Webb wasn't very effective, but he was a rookie as well. Bassitt might do relief work this year as well. That guy we got for Dunn might make a run for a spot in teh pen too.

Edited October 30, 2014 by GreenSox

[caulfield12]

Career relief pitchers are generally inconsistent. The best thing is to develop your own, and even use future starters as relievers for a year or 2.

For sure, going out and buying that "proven closer" is a game for fools.

Sox will probably have to buy 1 reliever this year, probably from the left side, and pray.

But Petricka and PUtnam were virtual rookies, Guerra's a good reliver. Carroll could so well. Webb wasn't very effective, but he was a rookie as well. Bassitt might do relief work this year as well. That guy we got for Dunn might make a run for a spot in teh pen too.

 

 

Sanburn

[LDF]

Sanburn

 

as green sox mention, I really think the closer may be in-house already with

Sanburn and sharing with the other 2 pitchers, Petricka and PUtnam .

I wouldn't be oppose for the sox to pick up a real closer to work with the 3 rp

pitchers that I mentioned.

[GreenSox]

as green sox mention, I really think the closer may be in-house already with

Sanburn and sharing with the other 2 pitchers, Petricka and PUtnam .

I wouldn't be oppose for the sox to pick up a real closer to work with the 3 rp

pitchers that I mentioned.

My objection to the "real closers" is that they are a)usually overpaid and b)often aren't the best relief pitcher on their team (teams use their best relief pitchers to get out of jams). Weren't there 2 closers on the market last year both of whom were just awful this year?

I think we will get an experienced reliever- maybe 2 - more of the setup variety.

Of course I think Danks should get a look in the pen, although Coop thinks he can still be that control type starter.

[caulfield12]

The current class of Casey Janssen, David Robertson, Francisco Rodriguez, Sergio Romo, Rafael Soriano, and Koji Uehara doesn't have anyone you can say with 100% certainty that they will fare better than Addison Reed even.

 

Probably Robertson, but is that worth $28-32 million for two years? Romo's attractive, but totally unproven in the AL. Uehara...at his age, you just wonder what he has left. Janssen's interesting, but also expensive.

 

You never know if you're going to end up with the "good" or "bad" Grilli, Rodney, Nathan or Frieri, for example. Ten years ago, nobody would have predicted that Santiago Casilla at his age would be a very effective closer.

 

It has been this way for years...there are 4-6 "elite" closers and the rest are pretty much interchangeable.

 

 

 

It's ESPN Insider, but there was an article predicting "who will be the next Wade Davis?" and Lincecum's name led the list (article by Petriello)...not sure what other names he picked, but they were all "failed" starters.

 

Of course, Lincecum at $18 million as a starter (2015 contract) is worth only $6-9 million when converted into an "elite" 7th-8th inning guy like Davis.

Edited October 31, 2014 by caulfield12

[greg775]

Sanburn

 

That would be awesome if Dunn brought us a star. I'd forgive Dunn for his Ks if this guy is the next superstar in the pen.

[Eminor3rd]

One, you should rework your definition of rotten. From 2005 to 2014 the Sox bullpen ranked 2, 10, 12, 8, 8, 5, 9, 8, 11, and 14 in ERA in the AL. Typically middle of the pack, and that in a stat that puts a team playing in US Cellular Field at a disadvantage.

 

Two, it's beside the point anyway, because from 2005-2007, the three years prior to their turnaround, the Rays bullpen ranked 13th, 12th, and 14th in the AL. The year before that they were 3rd. The year before that they were 8th. The year before that they were 13th.

 

Bullpens are volatile. I know you aren't a stats guy but hear me out on this, it doesn't use any sabermetrics, just a little statistical jargon. From 1998 to 2012 I looked at each AL team's bullpen ERA. I picked those years because the Brewers switched in '98 and the AL had 14 teams the whole time, so it made things easier on me. I compared each bullpen's ERA to its ERA in the previous year and got the R-squared value, which basically tells us how predictable something is. If every team's bullpen finished with the same ERA every year (Yankees 4.25, A's 3.33, Sox 4.00, etc.), that number would be 1.0.

 

Instead, it was .136. That means you can predict about 14% of a bullpen's performance by looking at the previous year; the rest is due to other factors. It means it is extremely difficult to predict how a team's bullpen will do based just on the previous season. I did the same test for starting ERA and got .319. With runs scored, it's .312. There are always teams that surprise in any avenue, like the Sox offense going from dead last to middling from 2013 to 2014, or the starters' ERA going from first to middling from 2005 to 2006. But with bullpens it really happens constantly.

 

Insanely low correlation. Turnover is a factor, but that doesn't explain all of it. The fact is these guys pitch low number of innings, and weird things can happen in low numbers of innings. Bullpens are unpredictable. You get a bunch of good arms and hope it works out.

[LDF]

My objection to the "real closers" is that they are a)usually overpaid and b)often aren't the best relief pitcher on their team (teams use their best relief pitchers to get out of jams). Weren't there 2 closers on the market last year both of whom were just awful this year?

I think we will get an experienced reliever- maybe 2 - more of the setup variety.

Of course I think Danks should get a look in the pen, although Coop thinks he can still be that control type starter.

 

well the team strategy for this offseason is anybody guess. I personally think that sox

have a great foundation of nice looking arms in the pen. young, yes, but a nice selection. that

is why I mention that yes get a closer (2yr), not a top closer or 1 in his prime. but a closer who

will be willing to share the duties with the young pitchers. use this season or the beginning

of this season as mentoring and then have a closer by committee type. they need a stabilizing

veteran who can lead the young pitchers.

 

I look up the old 2005 roster and I notice that a young 24 yr old Bobby Jenks was not an option

to close. but Dustin H was the closer that season. we all know how important Neal Cotts was that

season as well. a group of very good pitchers that season.

[Balta1701]

well the team strategy for this offseason is anybody guess. I personally think that sox

have a great foundation of nice looking arms in the pen. young, yes, but a nice selection. that

is why I mention that yes get a closer (2yr), not a top closer or 1 in his prime. but a closer who

will be willing to share the duties with the young pitchers. use this season or the beginning

of this season as mentoring and then have a closer by committee type. they need a stabilizing

veteran who can lead the young pitchers.

 

I look up the old 2005 roster and I notice that a young 24 yr old Bobby Jenks was not an option

to close. but Dustin H was the closer that season. we all know how important Neal Cotts was that

season as well. a group of very good pitchers that season.

Hermanson was not the closer at the start of that season, Takatsu was. Hermanson was a reliever recently converted from a starter who had something like a couple decent months in the role in San Fran and was brought in as a fairly cheap but veteran bullpen option. He got on a roll early in the season while Takatsu struggled.

[Eminor3rd]

Quintana >>> Ventura or Duffy

 

Pretty much, though I'd probably say

 

Quintana > Ventura

Quintana >>>>> Duffy

[LDF]

Hermanson was not the closer at the start of that season, Takatsu was. Hermanson was a reliever recently converted from a starter who had something like a couple decent months in the role in San Fran and was brought in as a fairly cheap but veteran bullpen option. He got on a roll early in the season while Takatsu struggled.

 

and you are prob right, I will not dispute you. the point is

the sox have a very good foundation and need that 1 leader

in the pen.

 

as I always said, an older players necessary means he is a

leader.