2014 MLB Playoffs Thread

[coolhandluke121]

I think the success of bullpens should lead to the next revolution in strategy. If your starters average 6 innings and your bullpen averages 3, in a simplified simulation of a regular season that means your bullpen as a whole is equivalent to 2.5 starters. That's a lot. And with more deft management, it could be even more - especially when you factor in days off. Every inning counts. I'd like to see more good pitchers in the bullpens, especially as long relievers. Pull starters earlier, especially if you have a chance to get an extra quality at-bat in a high leverage situation. Maybe you could even get by with 4 starters if you hold them at ~60 pitches. I'm not crunching numbers on this, but my impression is that you don't see relievers get hurt as much. You also see a lot of them with low e.r.a.'s, even though (theoretically) they're pitchers who weren't good enough to be starters. Obviously some of that is because of low inning numbers, but I suspect that there is some biomechanics and exercise science involved. Go all-out in shorter outings and be ready again in 3-4 days. Relievers may be under-utilized.

Regarding the lack of success for teams with high-end starters, I'd say that's an anomaly based on the proliferation of wild-card games and best-of-5 series. Even 7 games often isn't enough to prove you're the better team. I hate the new format. I'd honestly rather see 2 best-of-9 series; one in each league and a world series.

[Kerb Hohl]

They have low ERAs because inherited runners that score don't count. They "weren't good enough to be starters" because they didn't have an extra pitch to fool batters the 2nd or 3rd time around in an order. They can let it all out and throw 98 MPH instead of 93 regularly and that is the difference.

I don't disagree with some of your ideas, though.

[coolhandluke121]

They have low ERAs because inherited runners that score don't count. They "weren't good enough to be starters" because they didn't have an extra pitch to fool batters the 2nd or 3rd time around in an order. They can let it all out and throw 98 MPH instead of 93 regularly and that is the difference.

I don't disagree with some of your ideas, though.

The first point is a good one, but they do also leave runners on for the next guy as well. Their WHIPS and K/9 ratios often seem pretty good. I'm not crunching any numbers though. It's a very crude observation. The point about not facing guys 2 or 3 times is exactly what I'm talking about; I'm advocating that more relievers go an entire time through the order and fewer starters go 3 times through the order - especially since that would allow one extra productive at-bat per game if you have the depth and versatility to do so.

I also think being able to regularly wind up and throw in the high 90's is a huge difference. And I suspect it's the repetitive stress of throwing over and over again that does more damage than coming in and throwing 25 hard pitches 60-70 times a year. Muscles should recover in just days, but ligaments and cartilage are a serious problem when they get overworked.

[El Duderino]

I think the success of bullpens should lead to the next revolution in strategy. If your starters average 6 innings and your bullpen averages 3, in a simplified simulation of a regular season that means your bullpen as a whole is equivalent to 2.5 starters. That's a lot. And with more deft management, it could be even more - especially when you factor in days off. Every inning counts. I'd like to see more good pitchers in the bullpens, especially as long relievers. Pull starters earlier, especially if you have a chance to get an extra quality at-bat in a high leverage situation. Maybe you could even get by with 4 starters if you hold them at ~60 pitches. I'm not crunching numbers on this, but my impression is that you don't see relievers get hurt as much. You also see a lot of them with low e.r.a.'s, even though (theoretically) they're pitchers who weren't good enough to be starters. Obviously some of that is because of low inning numbers, but I suspect that there is some biomechanics and exercise science involved. Go all-out in shorter outings and be ready again in 3-4 days. Relievers may be under-utilized.

Regarding the lack of success for teams with high-end starters, I'd say that's an anomaly based on the proliferation of wild-card games and best-of-5 series. Even 7 games often isn't enough to prove you're the better team. I hate the new format. I'd honestly rather see 2 best-of-9 series; one in each league and a world series.

I've thought bullpens are underrated in importance for awhile now, especially in the playoffs.

It's not just this year either. Last season besides Lester, Boston pretty much rode their bullpen and offense to a title in the playoffs. In 2012, the Cardinals just barely got into the playoffs and throughout those playoffs, their rotation often was mediocre to struggling, but their pen was great and the offense scored a lot of runs. I still remember LaRussa regularly pulling starters early to pretty early in games at first sign of struggle and smartly using the bullpen to keep games close enough to win later.

With all of the off days in the playoffs and a manager not having to worry about over-working his bullpen given the season is nearly done with, they can pull a starter in say the 3rd, 4th or 5th inning without giving it a second thought, unlike the regular season where starters have to get innings to keep the pen fresh.

That said, building a really good to dominant bullpen isn't easy. Those guys often can be up and down from year to year and injuries can quickly turn a good pen into a mediocre one. Plus, in that 162 game grind of a regular season, your rotation has to be a bigger priority. Ideally you get your best bullpen power arms from the minors where they can be cheap except maybe paying a closer.

This is yet another area where the Brewers poor drafting of pitching has failed the big league team, not just the rotation which got most of the focus for having to sign free agent starters. Most of the time Melvin has had to patch together a bullpen via free agents and savvy scrap heap finds simply because there weren't enough quality options to call up from the minors as many other teams get their good pen arms from.

[BigDee]

Big RBI by Gordon.

[BigDee]

Giants are right back in this.

[BigDee]

Nice Royals take game 3.

[BigDee]

Alright the game is tied.

[humanrefutation]

Why do I have a feeling that this World Series is going to end with the Royals winning and the storyline being that Bumgarner should have gone 1-4-7.

[ReasonablySober]

Why do I have a feeling that this World Series is going to end with the Royals winning and the storyline being that Bumgarner should have gone 1-4-7.

I'd laugh if that happens. I couldn't believe they didn't send him out there in game 4.

[DanoMac]

I hope the Royals get demolished tonight. I could never cheer for a team led by Yost that makes it on dumb luck, and a team that was in the low 20s in attendance. Their fanbase doesn't deserve this and neither does Yost.

[Kerb Hohl]

I wanted the Royals when the playoffs started, but I agree with DanoMac. I also don't want to listen to the "ZOMG we could have just kept Escobar, Cain, and Aoki and won it all!" jazz. Escobar is a clear upgrade over Segura at this point and I realize Odorizzi was used to get Shields, but we have Gomez and players that don't suck as much as Aoki in RF. They're going to win the WS (if they do) because they had a solid regular season roster with solid pitching and an unreal bullpen to make the playoffs. Once there, they have the perfectly-constructed roster for the playoffs, I'll give them that.

Oh, their division also blows and will only getting worse assuming Detroit doesn't spend big on their own pitching and Miggy continues to stay off of the roids, which is their only hope of making it to the playoffs regularly going forward.

Their viability going forward also rests on Yordano and Duffy's arms not falling off. Both guys throwing mid/upper 90s this year does not bode well. Their pitching could be a dumpster fire if those guys can't maintain that.

[ReasonablySober]

Eh, that sounds like some serious sour grapes.

I don't feel strongly either way. I follow people on Twitter that you wouldn't even know where Royals fans until September and now they're live tweeting games. But I figure it isn't like the team's given them a reason to be excited for 30 years so let them have this. The Giants have won enough.

[Kerb Hohl]

I don't really think it's sour grapes...it was just a bit bothersome that some of the things they are doing and things that Ned Yost does are being lauded, players overrated, etc.

That said, if they win it, then whatever they did was right for 2014.

I don't blame them at all for the fair weather fan thing. That'll happen to any fanbase. I find it hilarious that any fanbase says that to them. We were just there not long ago as Brewers fans with nobody showing up to County Stadium or even Miller Park. I saw a Cubs fan giving them ****. I'd imagine the Cubs' attendance is slightly higher than the down years of the Brewers/Royals because they haven't been down (read: useless) for 20ish or more years like the Brewers/Royals were and they have a massive city and several-state fanbase to fill in for 25K fans instead of 12K like the Brewers/Royals got down to.

Yankees fans barely show up even when their team is winning.

[El Duderino]

I wanted the Royals when the playoffs started, but I agree with DanoMac. I also don't want to listen to the "ZOMG we could have just kept Escobar, Cain, and Aoki and won it all!" jazz. Escobar is a clear upgrade over Segura at this point and I realize Odorizzi was used to get Shields, but we have Gomez and players that don't suck as much as Aoki in RF. They're going to win the WS (if they do) because they had a solid regular season roster with solid pitching and an unreal bullpen to make the playoffs. Once there, they have the perfectly-constructed roster for the playoffs, I'll give them that.

I don't know about that. Boston and St. Louis won the last two titles mainly on scoring lots of runs and good bullpens through the playoffs, while KC has used speed, defense, and a great bullpen. The only common theme among the three that i see is great performing pens.

IMO the Royals just got hot in the playoffs and they easily could have/should have lost to Oakland during the plan in game given how rare it is to come back from not only a 7-3 deficit in the 8th, also a 7-6 deficit in the 9th, and a one deficit in the 12th. Mix in they were a home run deprived team during the regular season, yet have hit multiple key home runs to win playoff games, it all shows that you simply need to get into the playoffs and then hopefully get hot at that point, along with catching a few breaks and then you may end up in the World Series.

[sidney lanier]

The clamor to start Bumgarner in Game 7 makes me think of the guy who came back from a Game 5 win on two days' rest to pitch a Game 7 CG shutout. I was just old enough in 1957 to understand what that meant.

Funny that Milwaukee's only two professional championships in my lifetime were both won because of guys named Lew.

[trwi7]

Who's clamoring for Bumgarner to start tonight? They're pretty dumb.

Bochy has a great weapon that he can use for a few innings. Don't waste it in the first couple. Say it's the 4th inning, the Royals have the bases loaded with one out in a tie game and Hosmer is coming up. That's when you use Bumgarner and hope he can get you through the 7th.

[trwi7]

So on Baseball Tonight just now Karl Ravech said San Francisco is not a major metropolitan city; is (Please Use More Appropriate Word).

[BigDee]

Come on Royals lets do this.

[BigDee]

Giants win the WS.