PDA

View Full Version : OMG! Our Bullpen is terrible...


Win1ForMe
04-01-2004, 11:50 PM
Just thought I'd point this out since there was some optimism here surrounding Billy Koch and "learning how to pitch."

Marte, Kelly, and maybe Politte? After that, it looks bad. You would think it wouldn't be too hard to acquire middle relief, Al Levine-types to fill out the bullpen given the current "economic climate" in baseball. But KW has failed in that as well.

IMO, there's nothing better for a rookie manager than having a good bullpen. This season has all the makings of a train wreck.

gogosoxgogo
04-01-2004, 11:53 PM
Just to add fuel to the fire, Marte has been experiencing some discomfort and is changing his mechanics a little bit, Wunsch is struggling to hit 80 on the radar gun, and Shingo truly is Mr. Zero.

Getting that out there though, I think that we are going to be fine. Marte will be awesome as usual, Pollitte will prove to be a nice pickup, Koch will at least be better than last year, Wunsch just needs time and he will be fine (he's starting the season on the DL), Shingo can at least serve as a right handed Kelly Wunsch, and there's room for optimism with the way Jon Adkins has pitched this spring.

inta
04-02-2004, 12:48 AM
:gulp:

the revenge of kieth foulke.

ode to veeck
04-02-2004, 01:05 AM
Let's hope Kelly's shoulder holds out. If Nardi was still here, the season would be over by May.

ShoelessFred
04-02-2004, 02:44 AM
Originally posted by inta
:gulp:

the revenge of kieth foulke.

foulke has almost been as bad as mr. zero

CubKilla
04-02-2004, 10:31 AM
Originally posted by ShoelessFred
foulke has almost been as bad as mr. zero

I'd still rather have Foulke than Botch.

poorme
04-02-2004, 10:33 AM
If Marte has arm problems, this bullpen will be a disaster.

CubKilla
04-02-2004, 10:38 AM
Originally posted by poorme
If Marte has arm problems, this bullpen will be a disaster.

This BP is already a disaster waiting to happen even with a healthy Marte. The only other decent reliever there is Wunsch.

Jerko
04-02-2004, 10:50 AM
Originally posted by CubKilla
This BP is already a disaster waiting to happen even with a healthy Marte. The only other decent reliever there is Wunsch.

True, and his over/under for innings pitched is about 20 until he gets hurt. Maybe he'll do better if he's not asked to come in to walk, er, pitch to one batter and then be yanked.

LoveTheSox
04-02-2004, 10:50 AM
What about Politte? I've been hearing his spring numbers have been pretty good. Maybe there's hope after all? :chickenlittle

poorme
04-02-2004, 10:58 AM
I think Politte will be pretty good....as long as he stays healthy.

harwar
04-02-2004, 11:54 AM
Losing T. Gordon was huge.
Koch won't even be in MLB next year.
Other than Wunch & Marte everyone else is just bad.
We may have the worst bullpen in the AL but according to Hawk we have one of the best,go figure.
Anyway you look at it,its going to be a long year and all we have to look forward to is the battle for 3rd if KW doesn't do something about our pitching.

munchman33
04-02-2004, 12:00 PM
Say what you will about how bad you think our bullpen will be, I'd still rather have it than any other bullpen in our division.

KingXerxes
04-02-2004, 12:06 PM
Okay I will readily admit to not paying too much attention over the past ten days or so, but what is this about Wunsch being hurt and Marte's shoulder? This is all news to me.

rdivaldi
04-02-2004, 12:07 PM
To say our bullpen is going to be "bad" is quite a stretch. While we obviously won't be great, we are pretty solid.

Adkins and Politte have me very excited, both have been extremely impressive this spring. If Wunsch was healthy I'd obviously be more confident, but all the chicken littles around here need to have a :gulp:

poorme
04-02-2004, 12:09 PM
Adkins struck out 1 all spring.

CubKilla
04-02-2004, 12:11 PM
Originally posted by poorme
Adkins struck out 1 all spring.

That's impressively BAD!

rdivaldi
04-02-2004, 12:15 PM
Adkins struck out 1 all spring.

You 2 have got to be kidding me. What are you, Flubbie fans? So the fact that in 11 innings he only gave up 9 hits and walked 3 with an ERA of 0.84 means nothing?

Good lord, I'd expect more of an argument on this board....

poorme
04-02-2004, 12:25 PM
Maybe we have a clue that ERA is meaningless when you're talking about 10 innings.

rdivaldi
04-02-2004, 12:28 PM
Originally posted by poorme
Maybe we have a clue that ERA is meaningless when you're talking about 10 innings.

Maybe, but that still does not excuse a piss poor argument such as "he only has 1 strikeout".

WHIP of 1.09 is pretty impressive.

poorme
04-02-2004, 12:31 PM
I suppose you know that (hits/balls in play) is random except for the most unusual of pitchers (knuckleballers, etc.)

SEALgep
04-02-2004, 12:34 PM
Originally posted by poorme
I suppose you know that (hits/balls in play) is random except for the most unusual of pitchers (knuckleballers, etc.) That's not true. There are plenty of out pitchers who aren't knuckleballers.

poorme
04-02-2004, 12:35 PM
Originally posted by SEALgep
That's not true. There are plenty of out pitchers who aren't knuckleballers.

Show me the statistical evidence.

SEALgep
04-02-2004, 12:35 PM
Originally posted by poorme
Maybe we have a clue that ERA is meaningless when you're talking about 10 innings. I don't think it's meaningless to throw scoreless innings, regardless how many innings you pitch. However many innings he pitched, he got the job done.

SEALgep
04-02-2004, 12:37 PM
Originally posted by poorme
Show me the statistical evidence. Are you serious? You think every pitcher who is any good has a high strike out total?

poorme
04-02-2004, 12:44 PM
Here's the best analysis of the topic I know. Tom Tippett set out to disprove the theory. He claims to have done so, but what he did is show how rare it is for a pitcher to be able to control hits/balls in play. Moreover, those that were able to (Charlie Hough, Walter Johnson, etc.) were able to reduce hits by only a handful per season.

Over the long haul, what matters is a pitcher's:

1. ability to strike people out
2. ability to not walk people, and
3. prevent home runs.

here's the link: http://www.diamond-mind.com/articles/ipavg2.htm

rdivaldi
04-02-2004, 12:50 PM
I've actually participated in this debate many times, I think all of us just have different opinions on what is really important.

Personally when I judge young pitchers the first stat I look at is WHIP, then move on to BB/9. I like guys that don't allow baserunners and have good control. It's just personal preference and I don't think anyone can really argue against it. I find ERA to be much less important (eg. Jon Garland AAA stats)

KingXerxes
04-02-2004, 01:01 PM
:farmer

"When it comes to pitchers I like to think I know a little bit, and when it comes to WHIP ratios I also like to think I know a little bit, and when it comes guys named Adkins I like to think I know a little bit, but when it comes to pitchers named Adkins and their WHIP ratios I think I know more than anybody else in our listening audience, and for that we thank you.........for listening not for not knowing as much as I do about WHIP ratios on pitchers named Adkins. Well anyway where should we start, well why don't we start right here - that's as good a place as any, you know it's kind of funny Rooney but when you think about it where else can you start except for the place where you're at when you start? Take Jon Adkins then, he came up as a 26 year old rookie last year, not a rookie like Officer Danko in the Rookies as I covered in earlier broadcasts, but as a rookie as in rookie. Well in nine and a third last year, Jon - now I prefer John spelled with a "H", but I guess that's for guys named John, not guys named Jonathan who want to be called Jon - when a guy named Jonathan goes to the john, does it have an "H" in it Rooney? Well anyway in those nine and a third Jon - no H - yielded a total of 15 walks and hits for a WHIP ratio of 1.61, now it isn't exactly 1.61 I rounded, not truncated - truncation sounds like something that would go wrong with a tree . Well anyway Grady Adkins who pitched for - you guessed it - these White Sox in 1928 and 1929, well technically it wasn't these White Sox, because if that were the case this roster would be full of men who are too old to play anymore, unless some sort of time machine ray gun gets invented to allow these guys to go back in time and play with Grady Adkins, well back to Grady Adkins. His WHIP ratio was 1.54 in over 360 innings spanning 1928 and 1929, he also had a nickname of "Butcher Boy", not Butchie Boy like the kid in the Bozo cartoons, but Butcher Boy.

:rooney

"Maybe they called him that because he threw a lot of meat up to the plate."

:farmer

"I don't get that................Well anyway, let's move to Doc Adkins who pitched early in the 20th Century - his WHIP ratio was a whopping 1.93 in 27 innings of work with the Red Sox who I believe were the Pilgrims and the Yankees who I believe were the Highlanders. Another of this bunch was Dewey Adkins who had a WHIP ratio of 1.66 over three seasons and 99 innings in his career. Could this Dewey defeat Truman, I guess we'll never know because Washington got rid of him in 1943, before Truman was ever Vice-President, and then later President - until 1949 when Truman was President and Dewey Adkins pitched for the Cubs who weren't yet owned by the Tribune who printed the now infamous headline about Dewey Adkins striking out Harry S. Truman at Soldier Field during the Dempsey-Tunney fight. of all the Adkins though the oddest was Dick Adkins who was born in 1920 in Electra, Texas, played one season for the Athletics of Philadelphia - that's right Philadelphia - and went one for seven with a couple of walks to give him a lifetime on base percentage of .333. Then in 1955 he died in Electra, Texas. Have I ever been to Electra, Texas - no, but I have been in an Electra....an Electra 225 which I suppose I could have driven to Electra in my Electra 225, but I can 't now because I don't have it anymore. But you can still go to Electra with Carmen Electra in an Electra 225 if you can find one................"

:rooney

"Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz............"

SoxxoS
04-02-2004, 01:06 PM
:D: :D:

pudge
04-02-2004, 01:10 PM
Adkins is going to get tagged, if you believe anything other than that, you're a fool. I don't care if he posted decent spring numbers, those rarely mean jack anyway... and Cotts out of the pen is another potential disaster.

Having said that, the rest of our division isn't looking much better, so everyone needs to chill.

SEALgep
04-02-2004, 01:12 PM
Originally posted by poorme
Here's the best analysis of the topic I know. Tom Tippett set out to disprove the theory. He claims to have done so, but what he did is show how rare it is for a pitcher to be able to control hits/balls in play. Moreover, those that were able to (Charlie Hough, Walter Johnson, etc.) were able to reduce hits by only a handful per season.

Over the long haul, what matters is a pitcher's:

1. ability to strike people out
2. ability to not walk people, and
3. prevent home runs.

here's the link: http://www.diamond-mind.com/articles/ipavg2.htm How do you prevent homeruns if hits are random and no way for a pitcher to control? You can't, unless you have some degree of control.

jeremyb1
04-02-2004, 01:18 PM
Originally posted by rdivaldi
I've actually participated in this debate many times, I think all of us just have different opinions on what is really important.

Personally when I judge young pitchers the first stat I look at is WHIP, then move on to BB/9. I like guys that don't allow baserunners and have good control. It's just personal preference and I don't think anyone can really argue against it. I find ERA to be much less important (eg. Jon Garland AAA stats)

The problem with WHIP though is that it is largely comprised of hits. So if pitchers have little control over how many hits they allow, WHIP is pretty meaningless. To use your own example, Garland's WHIP in AAA would've been pretty impressive. His K/BB wasn't quite as impressive but while you'd like better than 2:1 in the minors its not horrific. Its not along the lines of Grilli last season.

jeremyb1
04-02-2004, 01:21 PM
Originally posted by SEALgep
How do you prevent homeruns if hits are random and no way for a pitcher to control? You can't, unless you have some degree of control.

Because the number of hits you give up is mostly comprised of singles. A lot of singles are seeing eye grounders, duck snorts, balls misplayed by your outfielders, etc. Pitchers make good pitches and give up base hits all the time. However, to throw a pitch the hitter can hit over the fence, you ussually have to throw a pretty bad pitch. So if you give up a lot of home runs, you have a habbit of making mistakes hitters can capitalize on and those will come back to haunt you quite a bit unless you can give up mostly solo shots.

SEALgep
04-02-2004, 01:28 PM
Originally posted by jeremyb1
Because the number of hits you give up is mostly comprised of singles. A lot of singles are seeing eye grounders, duck snorts, balls misplayed by your outfielders, etc. Pitchers make good pitches and give up base hits all the time. However, to throw a pitch the hitter can hit over the fence, you ussually have to throw a pretty bad pitch. So if you give up a lot of home runs, you have a habbit of making mistakes hitters can capitalize on and those will come back to haunt you quite a bit unless you can give up mostly solo shots. I understand that, I was being sarcastic in order to show poorme that there are pitchers out there that don't rely on strikeouts in order to be effective. He seems to think only knuckleballers are out pitchers, and that simply isn't true.

poorme
04-02-2004, 01:32 PM
I doubt that you read the article or can understand my point.

POINT: The vast majority of pitchers have no control over the number of hits resulting from balls hit in play. All the statistical evidence suggest this.

The guy who figured this out was an ordinary white sox fan. Bill James was so impressed with him that the Red Sox hired him as a scout/analyst.

jeremyb1
04-02-2004, 01:35 PM
Originally posted by SEALgep
I understand that, I was being sarcastic in order to show poorme that there are pitchers out there that don't rely on strikeouts in order to be effective. He seems to think only knuckleballers are out pitchers, and that simply isn't true.

Well you can be effective if you have really low BB rates and low home run rates but not a high K rate. Otherwise its hard.

poorme
04-02-2004, 01:35 PM
Originally posted by SEALgep
How do you prevent homeruns if hits are random and no way for a pitcher to control? You can't, unless you have some degree of control.

That's the typical response from naysayers. Nobody knows why. The numbers just show it to be true.

SEALgep
04-02-2004, 02:10 PM
Originally posted by poorme
I doubt that you read the article or can understand my point.

POINT: The vast majority of pitchers have no control over the number of hits resulting from balls hit in play. All the statistical evidence suggest this.

The guy who figured this out was an ordinary white sox fan. Bill James was so impressed with him that the Red Sox hired him as a scout/analyst. I have the ability to understand, thanks. If you're point is that a pitcher can't determine whether their pitch will be hit fair or foul, well that's not some ingenius concept. It's all on the hitter, and I would love to get a job telling people just that. However, the point I was making was that a pitcher's talent or worth isn't predicated on how many strikeouts he can get. You said only knuckleball pitchers are out pitchers. That's not true.

rdivaldi
04-02-2004, 02:12 PM
Originally posted by pudge
Adkins is going to get tagged, if you believe anything other than that, you're a fool. I don't care if he posted decent spring numbers, those rarely mean jack anyway... and Cotts out of the pen is another potential disaster.

Having said that, the rest of our division isn't looking much better, so everyone needs to chill.

I fully disagree. Adkins looked in control everytime I saw him pitch and looked mighty impressive. Spring stats might not mean much, but it's pretty hard to put up good numbers in Arizona. The balls just fly out of the park and it's hard to get a good break on your curveball.

rdivaldi
04-02-2004, 02:16 PM
Originally posted by jeremyb1
The problem with WHIP though is that it is largely comprised of hits. So if pitchers have little control over how many hits they allow, WHIP is pretty meaningless. To use your own example, Garland's WHIP in AAA would've been pretty impressive. His K/BB wasn't quite as impressive but while you'd like better than 2:1 in the minors its not horrific. Its not along the lines of Grilli last season.

I don't agree that pitchers have little control over how many hits they surrender. Also, I have no idea why you're trying to use Garlands AAA WHIP to your advantage. It was 1.26, which is pretty good, but not that impressive.

poorme
04-02-2004, 02:16 PM
Originally posted by SEALgep
However, the point I was making was that a pitcher's talent or worth isn't predicated on how many strikeouts he can get. You said only knuckleball pitchers are out pitchers. That's not true.

Strikeouts aren't the ONLY thing that determines success. Just one of the 3 things.

I never said only knuckleball pitchers are out pitchers. I don't even know what that means.

poorme
04-02-2004, 02:18 PM
Originally posted by rdivaldi
I don't agree that pitchers have little control over how many hits they surrender.

Great. Prove it and you'll be the talk of the SABR community.

SEALgep
04-02-2004, 02:20 PM
Originally posted by poorme
Great. Prove it and you'll be the talk of the SABR community. If you can prove that a pitcher doesn't have control, you could GM and save your club a whole lot of money on cheap pitching.

poorme
04-02-2004, 02:29 PM
I think what we have here is failure to communicate.

fuzzy_patters
04-02-2004, 02:48 PM
Originally posted by jeremyb1
Well you can be effective if you have really low BB rates and low home run rates but not a high K rate. Otherwise its hard.

Do you mean like John Adkins, who has thrown 0 HR and 3 BB this spring?

SoxxoS
04-02-2004, 02:50 PM
What are Arnie Munoz's chance of getting the call early on?

SEALgep
04-02-2004, 02:54 PM
Originally posted by poorme
I think what we have here is failure to communicate. I guess so, if I am misinterpretating, I apologize. I guess I thought you were trying to say something else. Cheers anyway. :gulp:

sas1974
04-02-2004, 02:57 PM
Originally posted by SoxxoS
What are Arnie Munoz's chance of getting the call early on?

I would guess he'd have to get past Grilli first.

SoxxoS
04-02-2004, 03:15 PM
Hopefully someone steps up in the minors (Rauch) or Cotts shows he can start...b/c adding another arm to the rotation and putting Showenweis in the bullpen would really help.

sas1974
04-02-2004, 03:16 PM
Originally posted by SoxxoS
Hopefully someone steps up in the minors (Rauch) or Cotts shows he can start...b/c adding another arm to the rotation and putting Showenweis in the bullpen would really help.

I have been preaching this all winter/spring.

SEALgep
04-02-2004, 03:26 PM
Originally posted by sas1974
I have been preaching this all winter/spring. It's not like anyone knew for sure that we would be in this scenerio. Schoney very well could have picked up on those pitches and became an excellent pitcher at this point, still can but looks like it will take a little longer than hoped. Loaiza did it last year, and you can argue that was one in a million, but it was certainly possible that Schoney could do it too.

sas1974
04-02-2004, 03:31 PM
Originally posted by SEALgep
It's not like anyone knew for sure that we would be in this scenerio. Schoney very well could have picked up on those pitches and became an excellent pitcher at this point, still can but looks like it will take a little longer than hoped. Loaiza did it last year, and you can argue that was one in a million, but it was certainly possible that Schoney could do it too.

No offense, but I really don't want to get into another Scho Sucks/Scho is Awesome argument. I am hoping, like most people that he steps up (for the first time in his career) and becomes a good starter. It's definitely possible. I guess it's just a matter of how long we can wait to see if he's figured it out. Not too long in my opinion. We really need to get out of the gate quick this year.

jeremyb1
04-02-2004, 03:45 PM
Originally posted by fuzzy_patters
Do you mean like John Adkins, who has thrown 0 HR and 3 BB this spring?

Yeah except 1) 3 BB's in 10 innings isn't all that great and 2) you need a much, much, much better sample.

SEALgep
04-02-2004, 04:15 PM
Originally posted by jeremyb1
Yeah except 1) 3 BB's in 10 innings isn't all that great and 2) you need a much, much, much better sample. he's thrown 10 innings because he's a reliever, and if the people he walked didn't score, there's no problem. Cotts threw 11 innings this ST and everyone is talking like he should start. Sample is just fine.

pudge
04-02-2004, 04:28 PM
Originally posted by SEALgep
he's thrown 10 innings because he's a reliever, and if the people he walked didn't score, there's no problem. Cotts threw 11 innings this ST and everyone is talking like he should start. Sample is just fine.

The reason we're saying Cotts should start is because there's no other freakin' option... not because we think Cotts is a great choice...

The sample is not at all fine. Adkins is not a major league pitcher. This pen is going to hurt us in April, I fear a bad start to the season. Sorry, that's just a realistic look.

SEALgep
04-02-2004, 04:35 PM
Originally posted by pudge
The reason we're saying Cotts should start is because there's no other freakin' option... not because we think Cotts is a great choice...

The sample is not at all fine. Adkins is not a major league pitcher. This pen is going to hurt us in April, I fear a bad start to the season. Sorry, that's just a realistic look. What makes it realisitic. You're assuming Adkins is going to suck when all he's done is show he's capable of pitching in the majors, and that's realistic. It may happen, but it's still a negative outlook.

rdivaldi
04-02-2004, 05:26 PM
Originally posted by pudge
The sample is not at all fine. Adkins is not a major league pitcher.

While I won't deny the chance that Adkins will never be an adequate major league pitcher, I fail to see why you are making such a bold statement unless you have some inside info you are withholding.

jeremyb1
04-02-2004, 06:48 PM
Originally posted by SEALgep
he's thrown 10 innings because he's a reliever, and if the people he walked didn't score, there's no problem. Cotts threw 11 innings this ST and everyone is talking like he should start. Sample is just fine.

Well the fact that the walks didn't score is the exact reason that the sampe size is unacceptable. If you put a lot of guys on base via the free pass they will score in the long run unless you're incredibly dominant. The reason Cotts is a legitimate candidate to start and Adkins doesn't belong on the club lies in their '03 minor league seasons which are legitimate samples.

jeremyb1
04-02-2004, 06:49 PM
Originally posted by rdivaldi
While I won't deny the chance that Adkins will never be an adequate major league pitcher, I fail to see why you are making such a bold statement unless you have some inside info you are withholding.

I don't see what's so bold about that statement. We're talking about a relatively old pitcher with very limited minor league success. If he has the potential to succeed at a major league level why couldn't he get AAA hitters out last year?

Daver
04-02-2004, 06:57 PM
Originally posted by jeremyb1
I don't see what's so bold about that statement. We're talking about a relatively old pitcher with very limited minor league success. If he has the potential to succeed at a major league level why couldn't he get AAA hitters out last year?

By using the same logic that the FOC uses when saying Aaron Rowand can be a productive hitter at the MLB level,even though all of his stats throughout his minor league career suggest otherwise.

RedPinStripes
04-02-2004, 07:29 PM
Originally posted by Daver
By using the same logic that the FOC uses when saying Aaron Rowand can be a productive hitter at the MLB level,even though all of his stats throughout his minor league career suggest otherwise.

Rowand will win the triple crown this year. Just wait and see.

jeremyb1
04-02-2004, 07:33 PM
Originally posted by Daver
By using the same logic that the FOC uses when saying Aaron Rowand can be a productive hitter at the MLB level,even though all of his stats throughout his minor league career suggest otherwise.

Well one difference is that Rowand plays CF, a very weak position offensively. The position of pitcher has a lot more capable players.

Daver
04-02-2004, 07:37 PM
Originally posted by jeremyb1
Well one difference is that Rowand plays CF, a very weak position offensively. The position of pitcher has a lot more capable players.

What the hell does that have to do with what the numbers say?

So you are saying that using stats works when evaluating a pitcher,but you throw them out when evaluating a CFer?

Now I know why I find perceptions based on stats to be meaningless.

Thanx.

SEALgep
04-02-2004, 09:04 PM
Originally posted by jeremyb1
Well the fact that the walks didn't score is the exact reason that the sampe size is unacceptable. If you put a lot of guys on base via the free pass they will score in the long run unless you're incredibly dominant. The reason Cotts is a legitimate candidate to start and Adkins doesn't belong on the club lies in their '03 minor league seasons which are legitimate samples. 3BB though isn't as alarming as you are making it out to be. The fact that he was able to get himself out of a jam speaks well of his ability. If you're saying that it was only 10 innings and he was lucky, well I don't buy it. If he walks a lot of people, that's obviously a problem, but I don't think three walks constitutes a lot. We shall see, but Guillen and Coop obviously think he can get the job done, because they saw him do it. Watching what he's done is much better than just looking at the stats. If their happy, then I am too.

pudge
04-03-2004, 08:42 PM
Originally posted by jeremyb1
I don't see what's so bold about that statement. We're talking about a relatively old pitcher with very limited minor league success. If he has the potential to succeed at a major league level why couldn't he get AAA hitters out last year?

Thank you jeremy... I love how people watch Adkins pitch 10 decent spring innings, and suddenly he's going to be a major league pitcher. The Loaiza miracle from last year has too many people blindly optimistic.

Look, I'll eat crow if I'm wrong, but I had these same arguments last year with people regarding Rauch and Stewart, and I was painfully correct.