Bullpenning

[jorgenswest]

Saw an article where the Twins are giving bullpenning a run in the minors.

 

https://www.twincities.com/2018/07/22/curious-twins-give-bullpenning-a-whirl-in-their-minor-league-system/

 

Trevor May started and went an inning in Rochester. He strikes me as a good option to try as an opener and go two innings. Another pitcher than might fit well next year is Odorizzi. If he a team is loaded with lefties at the top of the lineup, maybe Rogers is a fit.

 

If May were to go two innings once a series you get around 108 innings from him and he never has the stress of warming up several times and then not be used.

 

If the Twins have Berrios, Gibson and several young pitchers in their rotation next year they might give bullpenning a run.

[Riverbrian]

 

Saw an article where the Twins are giving bullpenning a run in the minors.

https://www.twincities.com/2018/07/22/curious-twins-give-bullpenning-a-whirl-in-their-minor-league-system/

Trevor May started and went an inning in Rochester. He strikes me as a good option to try as an opener and go two innings. Another pitcher than might fit well next year is Odorizzi. If he a team is loaded with lefties at the top of the lineup, maybe Rogers is a fit.

If May were to go two innings once a series you get around 108 innings from him and he never has the stress of warming up several times and then not be used.

If the Twins have Berrios, Gibson and several young pitchers in their rotation next year they might give bullpenning a run.

 

That is the best news I've read about the Twins in quite some time. 

 

[mngopherguy]

I have zero interest in this.  Flavor of the month.

[Riverbrian]

 

I have zero interest in this.  Flavor of the month.

 

I was listening to Vince Gennero on MLB Radio interview a Tampa Rays blogger and he was saying that ever since the Rays introduced it.

 

The results were undeniably and immediately successful. 

 

Small sample size... I Agree But... I'm happy the Twins are going to do their own research instead of letting the Rays and everybody else be two steps ahead in case it continues working. 

 

It makes perfect sense on paper. It's just a new way of doing things in a sport that needs new ways of doing things. 

 

 

 

 

[yarnivek1972]

I was listening to Vince Gennero on MLB Radio interview a Tampa Rays blogger and he was saying that ever since the Rays introduced it.

 

The results were undeniably and immediately successful.

 

Small sample size... I Agree But... I'm happy the Twins are going to do their own research instead of letting the Rays and everybody else be two steps ahead in case it continues working.

 

It makes perfect sense on paper. It's just a new way of doing things in a sport that needs new ways of doing things.

It only makes sense if you have a guy to slot after your bullpen game that you can count on to give you 7 IP consistently. If you don’t, you overuse your pen in a real hurry. The Twins don’t have that guy yet.

[Riverbrian]

It only makes sense if you have a guy to slot after your bullpen game that you can count on to give you 7 IP consistently. If you don’t, you overuse your pen in a real hurry. The Twins don’t have that guy yet.

Nothing makes sense yet. The concept while working in Tampa in a small sample size is still a baby.

 

However as soon as you say "only makes sense if". You have immediately limited the possibilities.

 

I doubt the Rays who are implementing it as we speak are as confident in their assessments as you just were.

 

Weather this is sustainable over a 162 game schedule is a big question in need of an answer.

[yarnivek1972]

Nothing makes sense yet. The concept while working in Tampa in a small sample size is still a baby.

 

However as soon as you say "only makes sense if".

 

I apologize but I can't really take you seriously because you have decided that there is only one way to do this and you have made that decision in an incredibly short period of time.

 

I doubt the Rays who are implementing it as we speak are as confident in their assessments as you just were.

 

I apologize again... my response came across harsh. I didn’t intend for that impression. It was just a difficult point to try and make.

Oh, I agree, the wisdom of the idea in general is far from certain. But if you don’t have a guy that can not drain the pen the day after (and the day before frankly), it definitely doesn’t make sense.

 

My post didn’t really express that the way my brain did.

[jorgenswest]

The Twins are following up with a starter. Littell followed May. It isn’t a bullpen game.

[Riverbrian]

The Twins are following up with a starter. Littell followed May. It isn’t a bullpen game.

Tampa did this as well. Starting with an opener to get past the tough outs and following with someone who goes multiple innings. Many ways to skin this cat.

[Twodogs]

The Twins are following up with a starter. Littell followed May. It isn’t a bullpen game.

Almost like an early spring training game??

[Twodogs]

Tampa did this as well. Starting with an opener to get past the tough outs and following with someone who goes multiple innings. Many ways to skin this cat.

Seems to me that if Tampa had even just 5 average starters that they probably wouldnt be doing this? I mean Faria went down and they really don't have a whole lot. Now on the other hand the Twins seem like they have a few average starters floating around, notice Mejia today, but their relievers are questionable so it doesn't seem like a great fit to me in Twinsville??

[jorgenswest]

Almost like an early spring training game??

No. The second pitcher will pitch to a typical starter pitch count.

[wsnydes]

 

No. The second pitcher will pitch to a typical starter pitch count.

That's the interesting part of this to me.  To me, that would seem to push the toughest outs for a starter deeper into the game.  That 3rd time through the order is where starters really start getting hurt.  My personal taste would be to have that happen as early in the game as possible so that I'd be able to comeback if needed.  Pushing that point an inning or two deeper into the game would be counter intuitive in my mind.

 

Even still, I'd be interested to see how it played out in wider spread use.  I also have no real problem experimenting with it in the minors.

[yarnivek1972]

That's the interesting part of this to me. To me, that would seem to push the toughest outs for a starter deeper into the game. That 3rd time through the order is where starters really start getting hurt. My personal taste would be to have that happen as early in the game as possible so that I'd be able to comeback if needed. Pushing that point an inning or two deeper into the game would be counter intuitive in my mind.

 

Even still, I'd be interested to see how it played out in wider spread use. I also have no real problem experimenting with it in the minors.

I believe the theory in starting a reliever and then going with a normal starter revolves around making those first batters of the game (typically the best hitters) see one of your top relievers. That way those players won’t get their third at bat against the “starter” until the 7th inning instead of the 5th. Sure, the rest of the opponent’s lineup will get 3 at bats earlier than that, but they are less accomplished hitters, guys a mediocre starter has a better chance of getting through without damage.

[Riverbrian]

 

Seems to me that if Tampa had even just 5 average starters that they probably wouldnt be doing this? I mean Faria went down and they really don't have a whole lot. Now on the other hand the Twins seem like they have a few average starters floating around, notice Mejia today, but their relievers are questionable so it doesn't seem like a great fit to me in Twinsville??

 

Maybe but necessity is the mother of invention. 

 

How many years have we watched the Twins stick to the traditional convention of a 5 man starting rotation and populate that rotation with names like Logan Darnell just to keep that 5 man rotation turning. 

 

It probably never occurred to Terry Ryan to try something like this because everybody just trotted out a 5 man rotation because that's what everybody does.  

 

The Rays tried something else. God bless them. 

[USAFChief]

That's the interesting part of this to me. To me, that would seem to push the toughest outs for a starter deeper into the game. That 3rd time through the order is where starters really start getting hurt. My personal taste would be to have that happen as early in the game as possible so that I'd be able to comeback if needed. Pushing that point an inning or two deeper into the game would be counter intuitive in my mind.

 

Even still, I'd be interested to see how it played out in wider spread use. I also have no real problem experimenting with it in the minors.

I think the idea is that hopefully, the guy giving you 5 or 6 innings wouldn't have to face the top of the order a 3rd time.

 

These days, the plan for a starter is to get you somewhere between 5 and 7 innings. Think of it as 15 to 21 outs. Research has shown that both 1) the first inning is the highest scoring inning and, 2) starters really start to struggle the third time through the order

 

The top three hitters in your opponant's lineup represent outs number 1, 2, 3 and 10, 11, 12, and 19, 20, 21 and 28, 29, 30. 

 

So a good reliever faces the top of the order in the first, which in theory should reduce the problem of the highest scoring inning, and...

 

By letting a reliever get outs 1, 2, and 3, you push back the time your "starter" faces the top of the lineup for the third time to outs number 28-30.

[Tomj14]

This is no surprise, they are training the guys in the minors to go 5 or six innings with the 100 pitch count. And teams are smart enough to run that count up and get the starter out.

If you start a guy for an inning or two with not pitch count restriction, you may actually get better baseball since it won't be guys taking the first pitch almost every time.

But I was at that Sunday game against the Rays and the relief pitcher after relief pitcher was horrible!

 

I will add I see bad managers destroying bullpens with this philosophy. Imagine May pitchers a scoreless first inning, and Mejia comes in and gets in a little trouble in the 4th in a close game. I could see Molitor going to the pen, completely ruining the strategy.

[USAFChief]

 

This is no surprise, they are training the guys in the minors to go 5 or six innings with the 100 pitch count. And teams are smart enough to run that count up and get the starter out.

If you start a guy for an inning or two with not pitch count restriction, you may actually get better baseball since it won't be guys taking the first pitch almost every time.

But I was at that Sunday game against the Rays and the relief pitcher after relief pitcher was horrible!

 

I will add I see bad managers destroying bullpens with this philosophy. Imagine May pitchers a scoreless first inning, and Mejia comes in and gets in a little trouble in the 4th in a close game. I could see Molitor going to the pen, completely ruining the strategy.

In theory, Mejia would have gotten in trouble just the same, only one inning earlier, and bullpen usage would be exactly the same.

[Tomj14]

 

In theory, Mejia would have gotten in trouble just the same, only one inning earlier, and bullpen usage would be exactly the same.

Expect they would be using there 3rd pitcher instead of there 2nd.

And maybe because it is only the 3rd inning he lets him try to work out of the jam. (I realize this is all hypothetical and speculative, just trying to say a bad manager could really blow up a pen)

[USAFChief]

 

Expect they would be using there 3rd pitcher instead of there 2nd.

But the number of innings from the starter, and the bullpen, hasn't changed. The order is rearranged, but the numbers are the same.

 

Using Mejia for 3.1 innngs, and the bullpen for 5.2, is the same whether those 3.1 from Mejia come from the start of the game, or from the start of the 2nd inning.

 

May: 1 IP

Mejia: 3.1

Rest of pen: 4.2

 

Mejia: 3.1 IP

May: 1

Rest of pen: 4.2

[Tomj14]

 

But the number of innings from the starter, and the bullpen, hasn't changed. The order is rearranged, but the numbers are the same.

 

Using Mejia for 3.1 innngs, and the bullpen for 5.2, is the same whether those 3.1 from Mejia come from the start of the game, or from the start of the 2nd inning.

 

May: 1 IP

Mejia: 3.1

Rest of pen: 4.2

 

Mejia: 3.1 IP

May: 1

Rest of pen: 4.2

I hear what you are saying, In my hypothetical maybe the manager doesn't go to the pen in the 4th and lets the starter work out of the jam, but since it is 5th they go to the pen, because as we have seen in MN, sometimes a manager goes to the pen quite early with starters they don't fully trust.

A manager that is good a this will do exactly what you point out,

[wsnydes]

 

I believe the theory in starting a reliever and then going with a normal starter revolves around making those first batters of the game (typically the best hitters) see one of your top relievers. That way those players won’t get their third at bat against the “starter” until the 7th inning instead of the 5th. Sure, the rest of the opponent’s lineup will get 3 at bats earlier than that, but they are less accomplished hitters, guys a mediocre starter has a better chance of getting through without damage.

Right, that was the point I was trying to make.  That third time now occurs in the 7th rather than the 5th.  Assuming my starter gets that far in either scenario, I'd rather that occur in the 5th where I have more margin for error and more time to come back should my squad be behind.  That is the reason that I'd like to see how that plays out over a larger sample though.  How much impact does that really have either way?

[wsnydes]

 

I think the idea is that hopefully, the guy giving you 5 or 6 innings wouldn't have to face the top of the order a 3rd time.

 

These days, the plan for a starter is to get you somewhere between 5 and 7 innings. Think of it as 15 to 21 outs. Research has shown that both 1) the first inning is the highest scoring inning and, 2) starters really start to struggle the third time through the order

 

The top three hitters in your opponant's lineup represent outs number 1, 2, 3 and 10, 11, 12, and 19, 20, 21 and 28, 29, 30. 

 

So a good reliever faces the top of the order in the first, which in theory should reduce the problem of the highest scoring inning, and...

 

By letting a reliever get outs 1, 2, and 3, you push back the time your "starter" faces the top of the lineup for the third time to outs number 28-30.

I get that.  Perhaps the flaw in my logic is that starters don't go all that deep anymore anyway, rendering my concern moot in the first place.  But that's why I'm interested to see how it plays out over a larger sample to see what sort of impact it has one way or another.

[snap4birds]

I wonder if some team will take this to the next step-to limit all of your pitchers to 1 or 2 innings at all times?  Since they are more effective in short bursts?  I tried figuring out how this would work, I think you'd have to cycle through a bunch of guys from your minor league team.  And I've always thought it would be more stressful to pitch in a high number of games, it seems relievers tend to burn out more than starters.  

 

I have no statistics to back any of this up, and I don't think I'd like to see it.  But I can see the Rays trying it, maybe for the last month of the season when they have an expanded roster.

[Ben Noble]

I just really appreciate that the organization is trying something different, trying to stay ahead of (or with) the curve, and that they're getting their pitchers acclimated in the minors to a potential change in routine rather than just throwing it against the wall in MLB and seeing if it sticks. 

[Mike Sixel]

Several years ago I proposed having two or three good starters, and a bunch of relief pitchers between AAA and the majors. I still think, for a team with little starting pitching, it is an experiment worth trying.

 

As for the short starter, I think two innings of him makes sense. Get those better hitters out with less runs.... hopefully

[Han Joelo]

Does anyone know if opposing managers have attempted to counter the strategy?  Specifically, I mean has anyone adjusted their lineup?  I realize that conceding at bats from your best hitters would seem to be counterproductive.  I just think it would be hilarious to see a game start with a closer pitching and Bobby Wilson, Tayler Motter, and Jake Cave scheduled to bat.

 

And/or, if a manager burned all his pinch-hitters attempting to get optimum matchups.  Again, both of these strategies would seem to play into the hand of the opponent.  But wouldn't it kind of be cool to see an opponents "best" (or one of the best) relief pitchers get 'wasted' in the first inning, pitching against the likes of Motter?

[Han Joelo]

I would further expect, if this became the norm, that Baseball would counter with a rule change.  Every non-injury change of pitcher before the 6th inning costs you a baserunner.

 

And not just any baserunner, in my version.  Every team gets a "Designated Runner" on their bench, a player that can be used multiple times per game, solely for the purpose of being put on first every time there is a pitching change.  (This idea clearly needs to spend a bit more time in workshop.  Have at it.)

 

Edit:  Anything that would make sitting through yet another pitching change more entertaining for the fans would work.  So maybe even your designated runner is dressed up like the team mascot or something.

[Han Joelo]

I'm thinking this guy:

 

https://www.mlb.com/video/fan-falls-gets-passed-in-race/c-1481147283?tid=6479266

[jorgenswest]

Isn't the concept to start a reliever who can handle the beginning of the lineup for 1 or 2 innings and then follow him with one of your shakier starers so they can get started toward the back of the lineup? The second guy should go five or ideally six and now you're to your short guys in the pen. Might work iwth a guy like Mejia or Littel as the second pitcher.

 

Yes. It doesn’t even need to be shakier pitchers. Very few pitchers are going more than 7 innings.