Orioles have me wondering...

by jquigley on Nov 28, 2006 11:30 AM EST

Why wouldn't a pitching staff consisting entirely of relievers be effective? Is that crazy? Why is the traditional model of 4-5 starting pitchers necessary?
While we're at it, why can't pitchers twirl 300 innings anymore? Look at Nolan Ryan... power pitcher for 25+ years... Now, no one can last for 220+ innings consistently. How can this be, given the "advances" in conditioning?

This post was written by a member of the DRaysBay community and does not necessarily express the views or opinions of DRaysBay staff.

Tweet Comment 68 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

You should talk to Don Zimmer

I remember sitting through a SABR caucas at the Trop last year when Zim was a guest and I remember him specifically harping on the good 'ole days when pitchers would indeed throw that many innings.

The options you propose may not necessarily be inane, but they are risky and unproven, and no Major League team will be willing to be a guinea pig for those ideas, there is too much money invested in its success. Most likely you will see it happen with a low level minor league team or Indy league team first, if it happens at all.

But baseball is very resistant to dramatic change, and this would certainly qualify as such. However sound your ideas may be, the one reason they will not be proven one way or another for the foreseeable future:

$$$

by Patrick L. Kennedy on Nov 28, 2006 2:09 PM EST reply actions

Thanks, Patrick...

I certainly see what you're saying. Seems like Billy Beane might be the one guys with enough guts and organizational pull to go for a unique solution. My two thoughts are connected... I think we are seeing a bit of a blurring of the line between starter and reliever when starters are no longer routinely throwing over 200 innings.

Demon Deacons

by jquigley on Nov 28, 2006 5:00 PM EST up reply actions

good observation

I hadn't thought of the line being this thin. I for one would be intrigued if 13 RPs could outdo a conventional staff, you could then get into situational pitching only, keep one long relief man just in case of extra innings, and just make the rest of the game a chess match even moreso than it all ready is.

by R.J. Anderson on Nov 28, 2006 6:05 PM EST up reply actions

There is no problem with your ideas

Several of them sound quite interesting and I would like to see them investigated further, the problem I see is how it would be practical for a major league team to try and put the plan into place.

by Patrick L. Kennedy on Nov 29, 2006 8:47 AM EST up reply actions

Wonder...

Has there ever been a study to illustrate what an effective reliever gets paid per inning versus an effective starter's pay per inning?

Demon Deacons

by jquigley on Nov 30, 2006 12:21 PM EST up reply actions

the O's

about to sign Chad Bradford and Scott Williamson...just take all the FA RPs why don't you

by R.J. Anderson on Nov 28, 2006 4:23 PM EST reply actions

Baltimore finally gets it

Instead of spending all of their money on yet another hitter, the team is finally wising up and supplementing their pitching staff. With Hayden Penn and Adam Loewen on track for '07 and Chris Ray having another year under his belt, this team concerns me.

by Patrick L. Kennedy on Nov 29, 2006 8:49 AM EST up reply actions

No they don't

First off, it's the Peter Angelos-owned Baltimore Orioles.

"Wising up" and "Orioles" should never be connected, ever.

Next, I'm not as worried about Hayden Penn or Adam Loewen as much I am with Radhames Liz, Pedro Beato or Brandon Erbe. Adam Loewen isn't that great, nor is Hayden Penn.

Baez? Bradford? Williamson? Hawkins? What next, Chad Harville?

by Jacob Larsen on Nov 30, 2006 11:27 PM EST up reply actions

Wow

I don't know where you've been, but you seriously seem devoid of the facts in your assessment of the Orioles. Peter Angelos is arrogant and sometimes his ego takes control of baseball operations, but he has an open wallet and when he leaves the signings to the front office, he is a good owner. This is apparently what they did this offseason, because those players aren't "big names", and they drastically improve the bullpen to go along with an already solid lineup and an improving, young rotation.

Loewen and Penn are the two leading prospects of the system, they look quite good, and along with Beato, Erbe, etc. the O's rotation actually has a staple of young pitchers for a few years to come.

And comparing those free agent acquisitions to Chad Harville is indicative of your lack of awareness about their 2006 statistics.

by Patrick L. Kennedy on Dec 1, 2006 8:21 AM EST up reply actions

Oh come on...

First off, you know damn well that Angelos has the last say in everything. If he didn't, Miguel Tejada would've been in Anaheim at the deadline.

Loewen sucks, we've seen him pitch and we've hit him hard. Penn, at least, has the excuse that he's probably not ready year.

I didn't equate Baltimore's signed RPs to be as bad as Harville, I opined that they seem to be gobbling up relievers apt to implosions. Baez, Hawkins, Bradford and Williamson fit that bill to me. My quip was actually pondering if they have Harville in their sights.

Reading is fundamental, Patrick.

Does Florida have a snow day today because you're on pretty early for a school day?

by Jacob Larsen on Dec 1, 2006 10:05 AM EST up reply actions

Angelos does have the last say

As does every owner, as they sign the checks, however Angelos steps in to sign/keep "stars" as your Tejada example points out. Baez, Walker, and Bradford aren't "stars" but mere role players that help the team's bullpen improve without getting a lot of attention.

Loewen sucks, um...no? He has pitched all of 2/3 of a season, had a very good K rate and a good HR rate. His FIP was at 4.25, and he was victimized by bad luck. By your "logic", Jason Hammel sucks because he had worse stats in his callup.

You said, and I quote:

"Baez? Bradford? Williamson? Hawkins? What next, Chad Harville?".

Um, that pretty much puts them all in the same group.

As for the school thing, actually I was quite lucky today. I was so far ahead of the work in my BST class that I just had a free period to screw around and do whatever I wanted, and in the afternoon, my sixth period class was in the library, so I had time to work on the computer.

by Patrick L. Kennedy on Dec 1, 2006 5:26 PM EST up reply actions

Mutiny in O's Land

Patrick,

As a Devil Rays fan living in Baltimore, I have to totally disagree with your assessment of the Orioles and especially Peter Angelos. If you wish, you should go to www.freethebird.net, which goes through all of the things that Angelos has done wrong with the Birds and how he is turned what was the pride of Maryland into a page 3 story in the Baltimore Sun. When you have over a thousand protesters at a game late in the season, and when Camden Yards (which is maybe the 2nd best ballpark in all of baseball) half full or less for games, you have a team that's in big trouble and all of that trouble has been caused by the owner. Angelos is arrogant, but he doesn't allow his GMs to make decisions. The O's are notorious for not being decisive or doing anything bold. They are constantly being stuck between rebuilding and being competitive, which leaves you neither rebuilding nor competitive.

I will say that the Orioles could be more interesting with the pitching. Bedard is very good, Cabrera could be great (and maybe having glasses will help him) and a few of the younger pitchers could be good in time, but when you have some of the other stiffs in the lineup (Gibbons, Millar, Patterson), it will be hard to compete.

When the Orioles become scary will be the day that Peter Angelos is no longer the owner of the Orioles. Before that time though, the Orioles won't be a problem for the Rays and the talent we have in our system.

by ProfJason on Dec 3, 2006 11:23 PM EST up reply actions

No doubt

Your opinion is respected, and I very much appreciate it. Please do stick around Jason, I haven't seen you around here in awhile. Not not be sparse with your comments, we want to hear your opinion.

Perhaps I came on a little bit too strong in saying good things about Angelos. Is he arrogant? No doubt. Has the team been mismanaged because of that? Absolutely. But without question, he keeps the pocketbook open, even if he has spent his money unwisely.

But, and this is not a rhetorical question I really want your opinion on this, do these moves really smell of Angelos? To me, Angelos' past moves have always been big splashes, short term fixes that are accomplished by throwing money at the problem, and this has been reflected in their previous offseason moves. But does signing a bunch of relief pitchers really smell like the same ole Orioles? It seems like ever since Jim Beattie was let go, the team has not been as foolish with money as in the past, and signing a bunch of relief pitchers just doesn't seem like the free-spending Orioles of the past. But I want your opinion on that, as you know more than I.

by Patrick L. Kennedy on Dec 3, 2006 11:33 PM EST up reply actions

Somewhat Different

Patrick,

I would say the moves the Orioles have made this off-season are a bit more measured than some of the moves they have made earlier, but I'm not sure if that's a new approach or more of the reality that big stars don't seem to want to come to Baltimore, so they are looking at the lower level players. In the past few years, they had the high bids on Paul Konerko and other players, but they all refused to come to Baltimore.

I think that right now, the Orioles are working on making themselves a better team and they are addressing one of their bigger weak points, the bullpen. But when you are talking about getting Luis Gonzalez to play LF and maybe trading for Jacque Jones for CF (not sure what it is about all of the ex-Cubs), I still wonder about what Flanagan is thinking. Plus, they still seem like the organization is mired in a mindset that they have to move slowly and cautiously, but when you are in the AL East with the Red Sox and Yankees, I don't know if you have that luxury. But that's my opinion on them.

by ProfJason on Dec 4, 2006 10:23 PM EST up reply actions

Well, it is a respected one

Thank you very much for your thoughts on the matter, you are right about Baltimore swinging and missing with some high-profile free agents. Thanks for your thoughts.

by Patrick L. Kennedy on Dec 6, 2006 8:52 AM EST up reply actions

Similar idea...

Didn't LaRussa do a sort of short-term experiment something like this with the Cardinals a few years ago? Not real happy with his so-called "starters" he essentially sent guys out there to pitch no more than three innings, if I'm remembering right. Can't remember exactly how long ago this was.

by Not That Chuck on Nov 29, 2006 10:19 AM EST reply actions

I don't remember that

But that isn't to say it didn't happen. We all remember Lou's crazy idea two years ago that never got off the ground.

by Patrick L. Kennedy on Nov 29, 2006 3:10 PM EST up reply actions

He did it with the A's

LaRussa wouldn't let any pitcher go more than 3 innings. If you went 9 up, 9 down it didn't matter.. you were grabbing a nice seat on the bench. It lasted about 2 or 3 weeks I think and then he gave it up.

by SeanDubbs on Nov 29, 2006 11:57 PM EST up reply actions

LaRussa

Well that would explain why I didn't recall anything, because that was well before my time when he managed Oakland.

by Patrick L. Kennedy on Nov 30, 2006 8:08 AM EST up reply actions

Ah, that's right...

...the A's were pretty decrepit at that point if I recall. It was a pretty short-term desperation gamble in mid-season. If I recall it got problematic when guys started getting bombed before their three innings were up, but then again I thought it happened with the Cardinals, so I don't even trust my own memory at this point...

by Not That Chuck on Nov 30, 2006 10:02 AM EST up reply actions

mosquito bites scare me more

than the Orioles

by R.J. Anderson on Nov 30, 2006 3:38 PM EST reply actions

Delusions

To make you feel better about the Rays, you can use any degrading remark about our division rivals you want, but the fact is the O's, Jays, Sox, and Yanks will finish above the Rays next year, the O's have firepower for this year and the next few, and it will be a very uphill climb for this team in the AL East.

by Patrick L. Kennedy on Dec 1, 2006 8:23 AM EST up reply actions

Pfffft....

Just what we need, a Rays fan admitting a last place season in 2007 before 2006 has even ended.

I, in all of my "rose colored glasses" optimist heart, hope that you eat crow this year.

by Jacob Larsen on Dec 1, 2006 12:48 PM EST up reply actions

There is a difference between optimist

And blind loyalty. Degrading other teams' improvements when we have made none of our own is what I call blind loyalty. Even accounting for improvement in the maturation of our players, what sign at all do you see that we can vault above any other AL East team, when they have all made improvements and we have made no personnel improvements from a 61 loss team.

It's called objectivity, perhaps you should look into it. I'd love to be wrong, but at this point I see no reason why this team would leapfrog anyone else.

by Patrick L. Kennedy on Dec 1, 2006 4:19 PM EST up reply actions

Someone take your lunch money today?

Man, you're touchy today.

by Jacob Larsen on Dec 1, 2006 4:23 PM EST up reply actions

Not at all

I'm just tired of hearing biased opinions that ignore facts in favor of passion.

by Patrick L. Kennedy on Dec 1, 2006 4:27 PM EST up reply actions

What facts have you brought up?

Show me how Baez isn't a declining pitcher? Because he decreased his walk rate, along with his K Rate, in a pitcher-friendly LA stadium in the 49 IP for the Dodgers?

Now, while you're looking at his 2006 stats, look at his stats as a Brave. His K rate went up, to around 9, while his BB rate was nearing 6 and he didn't give up any HRs..

I'm just tired of hearing people opine that so-and-so is wrong without bringing proof.

by Jacob Larsen on Dec 1, 2006 4:34 PM EST up reply actions

Um, Jacob

Walks and strikeouts happen at home plate, the park factor has nothing to do with it. I am looking at his overall numbers for '06, and those overall numbers to me, mean more than selected data you chose to exploit for the benefit of your argument. And by the way, his walk rate would have rounded down and it wasn't even at 5.5.

by Patrick L. Kennedy on Dec 1, 2006 4:51 PM EST up reply actions

lol

Pat, we've been over this..
Baez, as you admitted will probably be in the low - mid 4's ERA wise.
Bradford, we're on opposite sides, I think he posts in the 4.5 + range with no Rick Peterson around.
who else, Walker + Williamson...your teling me any of those names scare you? We're not talking about a guy like Eric Gagne or say a lockdown 7-8-9 situation like Lidge - Dotel - Wagner...they don't have that and won't..just a bunch of average relievers in one pen....

by R.J. Anderson on Dec 1, 2006 2:43 PM EST up reply actions

Which, I suppose,

is a step up from "a bunch of way below average relievers in on pen," which was the Rays' M.O. last year...and this year?

by Not That Chuck on Dec 1, 2006 3:50 PM EST up reply actions

below average or young?

Last time I checked guys like Ruddy Lugo and Seth McClung weren't the problem in the bullpen.

by R.J. Anderson on Dec 1, 2006 4:11 PM EST up reply actions

Lugo was the only consistent performer

And McClung was a problem late in the year. I like the guy a lot, but his successful save rate didn't match up with his peripheral stats.

by Patrick L. Kennedy on Dec 1, 2006 4:26 PM EST up reply actions

What stats are you talking about?

Are you looking at his entire season or his stats as a reliever?

by Jacob Larsen on Dec 1, 2006 4:30 PM EST up reply actions

His stats as a relief pitcher

As a relief pitcher, he had a 4.43 ERA, but his K/BB was even, and his WHIP was 1.93.

by Patrick L. Kennedy on Dec 1, 2006 4:42 PM EST up reply actions

I blame this on pitch selection

he needs to use his curve a heck of a lot more

by R.J. Anderson on Dec 1, 2006 4:49 PM EST up reply actions

That may be true

And I hope he does, and I hope he does great next year, but the cold, hard facts say that his lack of using this (or whatever other reasons you want to use) made him a drawback.

by Patrick L. Kennedy on Dec 1, 2006 4:52 PM EST up reply actions

Ugh

I'm not going to assume that the bullpen will be bad, especially with Harville, Meadows, Walker and most likely Harper gone.

We'll have a noticeable upgrade at LOOGY with Ridgway replacing Switzer.

We'll have Salas replacing Meadows/Harville

We'll have Orvella replacing Harper.

I'm actually looking forward to this year's bullpen, seeing as we're going to see homegrown "good" relievers instead of worthless RPs like Harville/Meadows/Walker.

by Jacob Larsen on Dec 1, 2006 4:14 PM EST up reply actions

Replacing the veterans improves it

But I don't know how you can say Ridgway will be an improvement, becuase he hasn't thrown a major league pitch and Switzer is still here.

Salas was not that great when he came up here, and Orvella sucked all of last year.

I agree that it will be productive to see homegrown talent in the bullpen, however to say that we will be that much better with a bunch of unknowns is pushing it.

by Patrick L. Kennedy on Dec 1, 2006 4:49 PM EST up reply actions

Orvella sucked all of last year?

When he returned from Durham Stint #2, when Durham's PC "fixed" him, I believe he was back to his 2005 form.

by Jacob Larsen on Dec 1, 2006 5:27 PM EST up reply actions

He had all of 7 IP when he was good

In August, that is a SAMPLE SIZE ALERT!!!!

by Patrick L. Kennedy on Dec 1, 2006 5:36 PM EST up reply actions

wasn't he injured after those IP?

and also look at 2003 for the largest sample we have of him

by R.J. Anderson on Dec 1, 2006 5:42 PM EST up reply actions

2005 I mean....

by R.J. Anderson on Dec 1, 2006 5:42 PM EST up reply actions

So he was either ineffective or injured

Gee, that is a "sure thing" for next year! You have one of many things to blame for Orvella's struggles: The DRO screwing with his mechanics, injuries, the riding the proverbial Durham to Tampa shuttle all year, etc. Either way, of any of these excuses, he can't be labeled a sure thing.

by Patrick L. Kennedy on Dec 1, 2006 9:52 PM EST up reply actions

Feh

None of this is reassuring me about next year's bullpen...and Ruddy Lugo is not enough to keep last year's bullpen from being "a bunch of way below average guys" imho. So I stand by my statement. Good riddance to the ones who are gone, but I'm not jumping on any bullpen-of-the-year bandwagons yet.

by Not That Chuck on Dec 4, 2006 10:54 AM EST up reply actions

I'm with you

The bullpen of next year has a lot of question marks that lend doubt on my part whether it can be successful. However because the players are so young and inexperienced, anything is possible. We don't really know what will happen because we are going off of such little info on these guys (if any) at the major league level.

by Patrick L. Kennedy on Dec 4, 2006 3:19 PM EST up reply actions

Clearly

I am rooting for success. And I'll even go so far as to say that these guys seem like good candidates to have reasonably successful major league careers. This doesn't mean it's going to happen next season, however, and I shall need to see in order to believe.

by Not That Chuck on Dec 4, 2006 3:38 PM EST up reply actions

Pitchers

I never said Baez would have an ERA in the low-mid 4's, I said he'd have an ERA in the high to mid 4's, which is an improvement on the AL average.

To each his own on Bradford, but I don't believe a pitching coach that important.

And I don't know what stat sheet you are looking at with Jamie Walker, the one I'm looking at tells me he had a 2.81 ERA last year, with rising strikeout rates and lowering walk rates. That scares me.

Williamson isn't great, I'll give you that.

by Patrick L. Kennedy on Dec 1, 2006 4:24 PM EST up reply actions

Jamie Walker

He threw 48 innings last year, he's a situational pitcher (as is Bradford) and his park adjusted ERA was 4.5

by R.J. Anderson on Dec 1, 2006 4:37 PM EST up reply actions

He was a situational releiver

Is that so? Then explain to me why his IP total is higher vs. RHB than it is vs. LHB? Funny, I thought LHP were supposed to be LOOGYs only against LHB. Bradford is, but Walker is not, and was not used as such. And in any case, an effective LOOGY can be a good boon to a bullpen.

by Patrick L. Kennedy on Dec 1, 2006 4:46 PM EST up reply actions

right...

his IP don't suggest that he was used as one, but his .280 clip v. RHB, and .230 v. LHB do.

by R.J. Anderson on Dec 1, 2006 4:50 PM EST up reply actions

But they still didn't use him as one

It is natural for LHP to fare better against LHB, but his stats weren't so egregiously worse against RHB to label him a LOOGY. Combined, with more ABs vs. RHB, he put up a sub-3 ERA.

by Patrick L. Kennedy on Dec 1, 2006 4:54 PM EST up reply actions

so because Leyland mis-used him

makes him not what his stats show he is? I guess if Maddon uses CC as a catcher and he has semi success he's a catcher?

by R.J. Anderson on Dec 1, 2006 4:58 PM EST up reply actions

There is a difference though

His stats aren't egregiously worse against RHB. He is well within the acceptable range of performance against RHB, and the fact that he succeeded with the sample sizes as they were proves that he can have a successful year against both-handed batters.

by Patrick L. Kennedy on Dec 1, 2006 5:24 PM EST up reply actions

.280?

that means he was good against RHB? Scott Schoeneweis has more PA against RHB too but a career average of .291, do you consider him anything more than a LOOGY?

by R.J. Anderson on Dec 1, 2006 5:31 PM EST up reply actions

Look at more than Opponent's BA

RHB still had just a 1.25 WHIP against him, he limited the walks and held them to a respectable total.

by Patrick L. Kennedy on Dec 1, 2006 5:34 PM EST up reply actions

at the end of the year

the O's will look back and say "We spent 42 million on middle relief pitching."

by R.J. Anderson on Dec 1, 2006 3:40 PM EST reply actions

You severely underrate that team

by Patrick L. Kennedy on Dec 1, 2006 4:20 PM EST up reply actions

Look at the Orioles

Who do they have, besides Bedard and Tejada?

Brian Roberts? I think the 'roids wore off.
Ramon Hernandez? His glory days are nearly over.

Kevin Millar? Be still my heart!

Daniel Cabrera? When he stops walking under 100 people, he'll be great....whenever that happens.

Chris Ray? I've got nothing really against him, but I very much believe that he's going to have arm fatigue issues.

Melvin Mora? Meh

Hey, they've got Jaret Wright...

Wooooo, Can you say Batlimore WS bc they fixed their bullpen?

by Jacob Larsen on Dec 1, 2006 4:29 PM EST up reply actions

I never said that they were going to the WS

Or even that they were a playoff team. I just said they were going to be "much improved".

Their offense is adequate. I too think Roberts' '05 was a fluke, but he is okay.

Hernandez posted the highest OPS of his career last year, and his OPS' have constantly been above .772 in each of his last four seasons, the highest four seasons of his career.

Millar posted an .811 OPS last year, his OPS has been below .795 in a season exactly once (.753) and his career OPS is .838.

Daniel Cabrera has his issues, but he looks like a good starter for the future, and Chris Ray will only get better.

Mora's 2006 was the first season since 2002 in which he had an OPS below .821, and his career OPS is still .800.

Jaret Wright might improve again now that he is back under Leo Mazzone in Baltimore, but even if he doesn't, it still does not really impact the team too much.

The O's aren't a playoff team, but they sure as hell aren't going to be a bad one next year.

by Patrick L. Kennedy on Dec 1, 2006 5:33 PM EST up reply actions

Wrong

Their rotation is shaky as people perceive our's to be.

They have 1 good starter(Bedard), as do we(Kazmir).

They have 1 possibly "good in the future" starter(Cabrera), as do we(Shields).

They're might have a couple of prospect starters(Loewen and Penn), as will we us possibly(Niemann and Talbot).

I don't beelieve that their relievers, Leo Mazzone magic or not, will be anything more than our's.

by Jacob Larsen on Dec 1, 2006 5:43 PM EST up reply actions

you forgot about

Daniel 'Walk it Out' Cabera v. Tim Corcoran

and the fact they may have Leo, but we have Hickey who, like him or not, has to be an upgrade over the butcher.

by R.J. Anderson on Dec 1, 2006 5:46 PM EST up reply actions

I don't think Butcher did much of anything

I don't think he was bad, he was just kinda there.

And no, Danny Cabrera is ten times better than Corcoran.

by Patrick L. Kennedy on Dec 1, 2006 9:55 PM EST up reply actions

Subjective, subjective

Cabrera has the potential right now to be better than Shields if he can get a handle on his control. The difference is that while we have prospects, they have pitchers that are closer to the majors, like Loewen and Penn, whereas Talbot and Niemann are midseason '07, probably.

As for the relief pitchers, sorry. Not buying it. Their relief corps is not full of rookies, players coming off of injury, players in their first full season as relievers, and some rotation rejects. Their pen is more proven and have better collective stats.

by Patrick L. Kennedy on Dec 1, 2006 9:58 PM EST up reply actions