Bullpen Philosophy

[you_dont_know_me]

Why not just bring up some dude from A or AA (or rookie) in september that blows gas with a plus slider and see what happens.

I don't know why bullpens are so hard to replenish...especially for short bursts. There is so much raw talent in the minors.

If I'm the Cardinals, I'm trying out some young arms...have a couple outings, option them if they don't work out, and bring in another. I don't buy the years that some of these arms sit in the minor leagues. Surely they would be better options than some we have had in years past (broxton?) ouch.

 

[Neutron Monster]

Why not just bring up some dude from A or AA (or rookie) in september that blows gas with a plus slider and see what happens.

I don't know why bullpens are so hard to replenish...especially for short bursts. There is so much raw talent in the minors.

If I'm the Cardinals, I'm trying out some young arms...have a couple outings, option them if they don't work out, and bring in another. I don't buy the years that some of these arms sit in the minor leagues. Surely they would be better options than some we have had in years past (broxton?) ouch.

This sounds exactly like what they are doing with Alcantara.

When you see what the Cards have gotten out of Duke, Cecil, and Broxton, it does raise a lot of questions about whether they'd be better off bringing in a bunch of guys for 500k-1m and seeing who has it rather than signing "proven veterans" who aren't true studs long term.

I'll admit I've been surprised at Cecil's struggles. He's definitely gotten better as the year as gone on but he had been a stud for 3 straight years and that is over.

 

[you_dont_know_me]

Bullpen relievers should be more of a bargain than they are. Surely we have a bunch of plus arms on the farm..just find one that gets it done. They've been playing ball their whole life, suit em up.

 

[Duck_walk]

This sounds exactly like what they are doing with Alcantara.

When you see what the Cards have gotten out of Duke, Cecil, and Broxton, it does raise a lot of questions about whether they'd be better off bringing in a bunch of guys for 500k-1m and seeing who has it rather than signing "proven veterans" who aren't true studs long term.

I'll admit I've been surprised at Cecil's struggles. He's definitely gotten better as the year as gone on but he had been a stud for 3 straight years and that is over.

Cecil was not a stud in 2016. He blew 7 games in 37 innings.

 

[Duck_walk]

Bullpen relievers should be more of a bargain than they are. Surely we have a bunch of plus arms on the farm..just find one that gets it done. They've been playing ball their whole life, suit em up.

Wacha to the pen. Put a youngster in the rotation. Sign Lynn. No trades needed for pitching. Get a real SS and get a real hitter instead of an army of launch angling K machines.

 

[vbsideout]

Hell Lyons hasn't been touched for a month and MM shows no trust in the guy. Geez this team has so many holes one off season won't begin to repair the mistakes MO has made the last 2 or 3 yeara

 

[Neutron Monster]

Cecil was not a stud in 2016. He blew 7 games in 37 innings.

He was very good. W/L is a horrible way to evaluate relievers. He struck out 45 and walked 8 in 37 innings.

One year for a reliever is also a pretty small sample size subject to some heavy noise. He had a great 150 IP track record.

 

[Neutron Monster]

Hell Lyons hasn't been touched for a month and MM shows no trust in the guy. Geez this team has so many holes one off season won't begin to repair the mistakes MO has made the last 2 or 3 yeara

I have no idea why Oh was put in yesterdat? Why didn't they leave Lyons in?

 

[3Rfan]

I have no idea why Oh was put in yesterdat? Why didn't they leave Lyons in?

That was a puzzler for sure!

 

[vbsideout]

I have no idea why Oh was put in yesterdat? Why didn't they leave Lyons in?

I hate to admit it, but Matheny is terrible at handling a bullpen. What more does Lyons have to do? Gives up a hit and he yanks him for OH OH. (Trust)

 

[Duck_walk]

He was very good. W/L is a horrible way to evaluate relievers. He struck out 45 and walked 8 in 37 innings.

One year for a reliever is also a pretty small sample size subject to some heavy noise. He had a great 150 IP track record.

Wrong. He blew 7 games in 36.2 innings.
When the game was on the line he sucked.
So stop it. When we was in for mop up time he was ok. Dont confuse late inning relief pitching with starting. Seven losses means you had some crap performances.

 

[Eagles_Ball]

I have no idea why Oh was put in yesterdat? Why didn't they leave Lyons in?

Ummmmmmm....Matheneging.
https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_image/image/42183732/mathenaging2.0.jpg

 

[Neutron Monster]

Wrong. He blew 7 games in 36.2 innings.
When the game was on the line he sucked.
So stop it. When we was in for mop up time he was ok. Dont confuse late inning relief pitching with starting. Seven losses means you had some crap performances.

It means you pitched in a ton of close games where your team had a small lead.

W/L for relievers is basically worthless. Rosenthal is 11-24 for his career. Is he a worse than average reliever? Not at all.

In 37 innings the main things to look at are K and BB plus your scouting on velocity/location/etc. it's just a tiny sample size overall.

 

[Duck_walk]

It means you pitched in a ton of close games where your team had a small lead.

W/L for relievers is basically worthless. Rosenthal is 11-24 for his career. Is he a worse than average reliever? Not at all.

In 37 innings the main things to look at are K and BB plus your scouting on velocity/location/etc. it's just a tiny sample size overall.

Who have you been watching the past five years? Rosenthal has been unhittable at times but then had significant stretches where he blew up time and time again. late inning relievers with a lot of decisions is not a good sign. Losses are meaningful. Rosey earned every one of those losses by stinking it up. Really? Come on bro.

 

[vbsideout]

Who have you been watching the past five years? Rosenthal has been unhittable at times but then had significant stretches where he blew up time and time again. late inning relievers with a lot of decisions is not a good sign. Losses are meaningful. Rosey earned every one of those losses by stinking it up. Really? Come on bro.

I believe some of these saber metrics are really alternative facts for the number crunchers. If they are so accurate why are the Birds so average?

 

[Neutron Monster]

Who have you been watching the past five years? Rosenthal has been unhittable at times but then had significant stretches where he blew up time and time again. late inning relievers with a lot of decisions is not a good sign. Losses are meaningful. Rosey earned every one of those losses by stinking it up. Really? Come on bro.

Yes, he's been up and down, but the aggregate performance isn't that of a ~.300 pitcher.

Relievers have really weird W-L records relative to their skill set. Aroldis is at 27-24 for his career. It's just the nature of the position.

 

[Neutron Monster]

I believe some of these saber metrics are really alternative facts for the number crunchers. If they are so accurate why are the Birds so average?

The saber stats don't say the Cards are awesome. No stat pretends we are the Dodgers or something like that. Those stats suggest the Cards are SLIGHTLY better than their record - roughly the 10th best team in baseball. The sort of team that is a wildcard in a year where it is lucky and misses the playoffs by a few games in a year where it is unlucky.

The Cards are well within the range of reasonable outcomes for such a team. A baseball season is one random sample of 162 games. Random things happen. Guys get hurt. Guys run hot or cold. Etc. Teams could play the season over again and we'd get a different result.

What the saber stuff does is give you tools that are better predictors of future success than raw stats like W-L records of pitchers, ERA, batting average, etc. by taking into account quality of opposition, who is projected to be in the lineup, aging, "luck" or lack there of on balls hit in play, "luck" on the likelihood that a flyball allowed by a pitcher ended up as a home run, "luck" associated with relievers allowing (or not allowing) inherited runners to score, etc.

These measures suggest the Cards are a slightly better than average team. Maybe more of a 73-64 team than a 70-67 team. But they don't suggest the Cards have the talent to win 90 games in the average season, nor do they think this roster would do so next season without some upgrades.

 

[Neutron Monster]

Most teams aren't THAT far from where they'd be projected to be on a saber type of level. Something like a 5-7 win range is quite plausible for the average team, but there aren't that many who are off by, say, 10 games like the Giants probably are.

The bigger variances occur down on a micro level - players.

Someone like Pham, for example, is running like God. That may be a real improvement (and at least some of it probably is), but it may also be a really hot sample. The sabes are going to dial him back in their projections.

Piscotty has been a lot worse than he was in 2015 and 2016. There's a good chance he's a better player than he has been in 2017. Implicitly, the sabes are accounting for the fact that he has enough of a sample at the ML level that, at his age, he should bounce back. It also implicitly assumes he will be healthier next year.

The variances increase even more with sample size and it can vary by stat. I.e. Carson Kelly has played so little that his batting average is basically meaningless. The average reliever sees big volatility from year to year in ERA and W/L record because they pitch only 50-75 innings (although less so in K rate and BB rate, which stabilize faster)

 

[vbsideout]

Most teams aren't THAT far from where they'd be projected to be on a saber type of level. Something like a 5-7 win range is quite plausible for the average team, but there aren't that many who are off by, say, 10 games like the Giants probably are.

The bigger variances occur down on a micro level - players.

Someone like Pham, for example, is running like God. That may be a real improvement (and at least some of it probably is), but it may also be a really hot sample. The sabes are going to dial him back in their projections.

Piscotty has been a lot worse than he was in 2015 and 2016. There's a good chance he's a better player than he has been in 2017. Implicitly, the sabes are accounting for the fact that he has enough of a sample at the ML level that, at his age, he should bounce back. It also implicitly assumes he will be healthier next year.

The variances increase even more with sample size and it can vary by stat. I.e. Carson Kelly has played so little that his batting average is basically meaningless. The average reliever sees big volatility from year to year in ERA and W/L record because they pitch only 50-75 innings (although less so in K rate and BB rate, which stabilize faster)

Thank you for proving my point. Mo is a big Alternative stats guy and you are telling me he is satisfied to be slightly above average. Thanks

 

[Neutron Monster]

Thank you for proving my point. Mo is a big Alternative stats guy and you are telling me he is satisfied to be slightly above average. Thanks

This is nonsensical, to be blunt. That is not a reasonable rationale from both a logical standpoint and the stated philosophy of the front office to be a playoff caliber team every year (not necessarily the #1 team, but a team that in the long-term is playoff caliber every year.) Other things make more sense:

- Mo and the braintrust values this roster better than external models do. They have their own models/valuations that may differ from what we have in the public.

- If they were a bit short in their models, they didn't think they had acceptable trades to get the roster up to being a ~90 win team in the Winter and Spring Training. They may not have been willing to gut 2019-2022 to get a 15% better chance to make the playoffs in 2017 given how good the Cubs looked to be in March 2017. The Wildcard is roughly 50% less valuable in a world where you have a play-in game.

- Mo can only spend what DeWitt lets him spend

I think Mo is not the best GM on earth but I find it difficult to evaluate what is Mo vs. what is DeWitt letting him do. This team makes a ton of money relative to the average MLB team.

The ruminations from the front office during the season suggest they know they are lopsided from a roster standpoint (they have way too many decent OF in AAA and the majors) and they know they need to retool some this offseason.

 

[Neutron Monster]

Given the Cubs looked like they had 100 win potential in Spring Training, you can make a pretty good case that the Cards shouldn't have sacrificed lots of future potential to make a run at this year.

You can question why the budget isn't higher given their profits.

 

[Eagles_Ball]

I believe some of these saber metrics are really alternative facts for the number crunchers. If they are so accurate why are the Birds so average?

PECOTA had the Birds at 78 wins, so not sure the sabes view them much better than average. And haven't since the beginning of the year.

 

[Neutron Monster]

PECOTA had the Birds at 78 wins, so not sure the sabes view them much better than average. And haven't since the beginning of the year.

The ones at fangraphs (ZIPS, Steamer, Depth Charts) generally had the Cards at slightly over .500. Really, really close to where they are.

http://www.fangraphs.com/coolstandings.aspx?type=2&lg=&date=pre

Really, either 78 or 85 wins is well within the margin of error for reasonableness for a team that is on pace to win 82-83 games.

The models also didn't love the 2016 Cardinals.

 

[vbsideout]

This is nonsensical, to be blunt. That is not a reasonable rationale from both a logical standpoint and the stated philosophy of the front office to be a playoff caliber team every year (not necessarily the #1 team, but a team that in the long-term is playoff caliber every year.) Other things make more sense:

- Mo and the braintrust values this roster better than external models do. They have their own models/valuations that may differ from what we have in the public.

- If they were a bit short in their models, they didn't think they had acceptable trades to get the roster up to being a ~90 win team in the Winter and Spring Training. They may not have been willing to gut 2019-2022 to get a 15% better chance to make the playoffs in 2017 given how good the Cubs looked to be in March 2017. The Wildcard is roughly 50% less valuable in a world where you have a play-in game.

- Mo can only spend what DeWitt lets him spend

I think Mo is not the best GM on earth but I find it difficult to evaluate what is Mo vs. what is DeWitt letting him do. This team makes a ton of money relative to the average MLB team.

The ruminations from the front office during the season suggest they know they are lopsided from a roster standpoint (they have way too many decent OF in AAA and the majors) and they know they need to retool some this offseason.

Nothing in your rant does anything to prove my comments wrong. Sometimes I think you just like listening to yourself talk. They are sitting on a gold mine and continue to reap the profits while spending small market money. Middle of the pack to lower upper end. We will see this winter when they have even more money coming in through TV deal and they once again come in 2nd on the top tier players. Oh don't forget when I wanted them to get Martinez as a rental you thought that was crazy. How's that working out for Arizona. They got the inside track in signing him now. Go ahead and rant about that.

 

[wccards21]

Nothing in your rant does anything to prove my comments wrong. Sometimes I think you just like listening to yourself talk. They are sitting on a gold mine and continue to reap the profits while spending small market money. Middle of the pack to lower upper end. We will see this winter when they have even more money coming in through TV deal and they once again come in 2nd on the top tier players. Oh don't forget when I wanted them to get Martinez as a rental you thought that was crazy. How's that working out for Arizona. They got the inside track in signing him now. Go ahead and rant about that.

That proves nothing against metrics. That just says your front office is not as great as it has always been hyped to be. Money > product.

 

[Duck_walk]

Most teams aren't THAT far from where they'd be projected to be on a saber type of level. Something like a 5-7 win range is quite plausible for the average team, but there aren't that many who are off by, say, 10 games like the Giants probably are.

The bigger variances occur down on a micro level - players.

Someone like Pham, for example, is running like God. That may be a real improvement (and at least some of it probably is), but it may also be a really hot sample. The sabes are going to dial him back in their projections.

Piscotty has been a lot worse than he was in 2015 and 2016. There's a good chance he's a better player than he has been in 2017. Implicitly, the sabes are accounting for the fact that he has enough of a sample at the ML level that, at his age, he should bounce back. It also implicitly assumes he will be healthier next year.

The variances increase even more with sample size and it can vary by stat. I.e. Carson Kelly has played so little that his batting average is basically meaningless. The average reliever sees big volatility from year to year in ERA and W/L record because they pitch only 50-75 innings (although less so in K rate and BB rate, which stabilize faster)

Everything you said in this post I could have told you without looking at one statistic.
Is Piscotty likely to be better next year? Yes.
Is Pham likely to play injury free and hit this well next year? No. You can tell this by simply watching your team and not getting bogged down in silly make believe trivia.

Will Grichuk be a consistent hitter next year with a high OBP? No. I dont give a $#!+ what his exit velocity or launch angle is.
That crap is nonsense. Jack Clark hit the ball real hard. I dont need your numbers to tell me that.

I am a 6 WAR fan.

 

[Neutron Monster]

You can enjoy whatever you want as a fan but running a front office in MLB in 2017 without loads of saber stuff is like going to war without an Air Force. The tools are too powerful to ignore.

Baseball is the best modeled major sport by a pretty wide margin.

 

[Neutron Monster]

That proves nothing against metrics. That just says your front office is not as great as it has always been hyped to be. Money > product.

This team did a lot of good stuff. Of course you can point out that a lot of the good happened 5-15 years ago and this leadership team has mostly avoided mistakes moreso than made great improvements.

 

[wccards21]

This team did a lot of good stuff. Of course you can point out that a lot of the good happened 5-15 years ago and this leadership team has mostly avoided mistakes moreso than made great improvements.

Once this group took full control, they just let it ride. Whatever was in place was good enough. Sign a safe FA guy here or there, but stash money at every opportunity. They've done good at not making major mistakes, until recently.....and that is a lack of moves rather than poor signings.

 

[Neutron Monster]

Once this group took full control, they just let it ride. Whatever was in place was good enough. Sign a safe FA guy here or there, but stash money at every opportunity. They've done good at not making major mistakes, until recently.....and that is a lack of moves rather than poor signings.

One can wonder if that comes from the GM or the owner.

 

[wccards21]

One can wonder if that comes from the GM or the owner.

I would be more inclined to go owner in this situation. BPV is not a GM thing to spend extra money on

But you never know...

 

[Duck_walk]

Some folks on here remind me of the movie reviews on the Redbox App where movie fans try to sound like insiders analyzing why some raunchy summer comedy isnt Gone with the wind, or discussing the box office take or the movie budget. Who the freak cares?

Baseball is a game. I dont care if some yahoo for the Padres throws a cutter 27% of the time. And reading you trying to predict what GMs are going to do based on your limited information is a clown show.

We need a defensive SS and a hitter to build around. No matter who I bring up you clowns would come up with 15 make believe reasons why we cant get him. The Cards are loaded with cash and could sign anyone they want or trade a bevy of prospects for Stanton. Period.

 

[wccards21]

Some folks on here remind me of the movie reviews on the Redbox App where movie fans try to sound like insiders analyzing why some raunchy summer comedy isnt Gone with the wind, or discussing the box office take or the movie budget. Who the freak cares?

Baseball is a game. I dont care if some yahoo for the Padres throws a cutter 27% of the time. And reading you trying to predict what GMs are going to do based on your limited information is a clown show.

Coming from a guy who thinks the W/L record of pen arms is important..... I think I'll sleep just fine after that sick burn

 

[Duck_walk]

Coming from a guy who thinks the W/L record of pen arms is important..... I think I'll sleep just fine after that sick burn

Never said won-loss record was "important" for all relievers.

But a late inning reliever who has lost 7 games in 36 innings has been consistently good? Thats a sign bro. I said it when he signed. I didnt need advanced metrics or to act like a scientist like you clowns. He has been inconsistent and at times horrendous. Just like last year when he blew 7 games. You remind me of peewee herman in a science lab.

 

[wccards21]

Never said won-loss record was "important" for all relievers.

But a late inning reliever who has lost 7 games in 36 innings has been consistently good? Thats a sign bro. I said it when he signed. I didnt need advanced metrics or to act like a scientist like you clowns. He has been inconsistent and at times horrendous. Just like last year when he blew 7 games. You remind me of peewee herman in a science lab.

You're the Cub fan who throws a fit about Pedro Strop. He has a losing record during his career in Chicago and your eye test tells you everything you need to know.

 

[Duck_walk]

You're the Cub fan who throws a fit about Pedro Strop. He has a losing record during his career in Chicago and your eye test tells you everything you need to know.

You can learn a lot by actually watching the players you are judging. You should try it.

 

[wccards21]

And before you cry more, I said you guys should have tried to get Iglesias from Detroit...... You know..... the defensive SS you want?

 

[Duck_walk]

And before you cry more, I said you guys should have tried to get Iglesias from Detroit...... You know..... the defensive SS you want?

Yes. I would have loved to have had him.
You could watch three innings of a game and know his athleticism at SS makes DeJong look like a joke.

 

[vbsideout]

Yes. I would have loved to have had him.
You could watch three innings of a game and know his athleticism at SS makes DeJong look like a joke.

Yes but remember the Birds signed Fowler who has always had an injury history and plays defense on the warning track. His bat has been as advertised, but so has his history of injuries. Did management not see this in his WAR or launch angle.

 

[Neutron Monster]

Yes but remember the Birds signed Fowler who has always had an injury history and plays defense on the warning track. His bat has been as advertised, but so has his history of injuries. Did management not see this in his WAR or launch angle.

They paid him like a guy who would play 120 games a year, not 160