We're talking about the last guy in the bullpen, anyways. Smith seems fine in that role, maybe even better than fine. Plus, Aardsma is coming off the DL soon, anyways, and Colon will probably be back soon, too, which probably enables the Sox to move Buchholz to the pen if they think that will help. I think Timlin's pretty much done, but I don't mind them keeping him around to pitch mop-up innings in August until the rosters are expanded as a team morale thing if they want to show appreciation for him being a good soldier and working hard to come back from injuries even in his 40s. Also, I thought Timlin was done in 2006 and he was pretty good last year, and he has been pretty good since his latest return from the DL. This is basically the same bullpen as last year, but with Aardsma instead of Tavarez. They weren't really as good as their numbers last year, and haven't really been as bad as their numbers this year. It's a good enough bullpen to win another championship. I don't think the kind of guys who will get through waivers are going to help enough to justify losing a decent prospect, so the only way I can see them improving would be by taking on a guy who's a decent pitcher with a bad contract.

Maybe Colon could be a good reliever.

I sure am glad we kept Timlin over Breslow!

Yeah, they're fine. Breslow might be a decent cheap option for a couple of years, but he's nothing special, nothing the Sox don't seem to find 1-2 of every year to stock in Pawtucket. Smith has 2007 Snyder's innings, and Aardsma is the new Tavarez, like tjm said - and if they need another starter at some point, they have both Colon and Masterson. Despite losing Schilling for the year, they have seven decent to excellent starters, and a couple of extra relievers stashed in AAA. Hansen will not be missed, outside of the relatively unlikely event he ever becomes an A-level shutdown reliever.

The Sox still have the best run differential in the AL. I know it feels like the 2002 team sometimes, but I still really like their chances of getting to the playoffs and maybe making some noise.

The thing that I like about all these guys is that the Red Sox are having them throw multiple IP per appearance. That should allow for some flexibility when they make it to the Majors.

I think this is more a product of the incompetence of minor league batters than an example of something that will carry over to the majors. I've noticed it with Yankee relief prospects as well.

I think this is more a product of the incompetence of minor league batters than an example of something that will carry over to the majors. I've noticed it with Yankee relief prospects as well.

I think it's probably partly that, but a lot of it is that the minors are about developing players instead of being about winning games. They don't yank the pitchers in and out as much to create favorable matchups.

Regardless of the reason, I think giving your minor league relievers multi-inning appearances is a good idea. There's really no downside, provided you aren't slagging anyone's arm just for the sake of policy. If the guy doesn't go more than one inning at a time with the big club, you haven't lost anything. In the less likely event that he's a force in the pen, you have the option of using him for 1+ since he's been developing that stamina in the minors.

The other advantage of multi-inning appearances in the minors is that it gives guys additional opportunity to discover how to get outs against the platoon advantage. If you only use a guy as a situational reliever in the minors, it's unlikely he'll ever be any more than that. I doubt any team sets out with the intention of developing LOOGYs and ROOGYs.

There's really no downside, provided you aren't slagging anyone's arm just for the sake of policy.

On the whole, fewer but longer appearances are generally less tough on a pitcher's arm, at least compared to the conventional reliever's usage pattern. Lots of guys in the 1960's through 1980's pitched over 100 innings in relief without any problems - Bob Stanley even qualified for (and nearly won) the ERA title pitching solely in relief in 1982, but he made only 48 appearances, if I remember right. While that was a bit of an extreme, lots of relievers in those days averaged more than 2 innings per appearance, and few of them pitched in more than 60 games. This, plus starters going deeper, allowed teams to carry fewer pitchers and more bench position players, allowing for more pinch-hitting, third catchers, etc. I think the teams were better off for it, but have passed up the advantage of being able to carry good field no hit shortstops and pinch hit for them in all key situations for the advantage of getting an extra platoon advantage per game or so, but with a worse pitcher.

I doubt any team sets out with the intention of developing LOOGYs and ROOGYs.

I guess it depends on what you mean by "sets out." There are certainly lefty relievers who've been taught to throw three-quarters/sidearm junk that if very effective against lefties. I doubt many of them threw like that when they were drafted. Whether they were taught to drop down to become a good LOOGY or decided to do it on their own, I'm not sure. However, I do think that in the low minors, teams recognize which players aren't going to make it as conventional pitchers, and might encourage some of them to work on this approach.

Right now, Lars' double-A OPS is sandwiched between Hanley Ramirez and Joe Mauer on the list of top OPS's by 20 years olds in the EL since 1992.

Oh snap!

On the whole, fewer but longer appearances are generally less tough on a pitcher's arm, at least compared to the conventional reliever's usage pattern.

If they are spread out enough, yes. The problem in the majors - where winning games is paramount - is that if you use a reliever for multiple innings today, he might not be at his best tomorrow when you need him just as much if not more. This is, in large part, why you've seen the pattern of more relievers per team and shorter appearances per game. Teams have also gone to using relievers at the start of innings much more often than they did in the past; this gives the reliever time to warm up properly rather than having to be hurried into the game.

If anyone is going to be in the SF area in mid-October, I'll be presenting some of my findings on relief pitcher usage at this conference. I'll also start posting some stuff in Primate Studies within the next month or so.

-- MWE

So what's the origin of that name Temple?

Eh, I saw the phrase on fivethirtyeight.com and it just stuck in my head. Unfortunately, I do not really have red-state street cred.

Well, as a red state resident, I'd love to give you some pointers, but I'm afraid I don't have an ounce of cred of any kind.

It's too bad Gronkiewicz went down with TJ surgery so early. He probably would have gotten his shot this year.

This is, in large part, why you've seen the pattern of more relievers per team and shorter appearances per game.

Which manager was opposed to this, saying that if you throw out enough guys a game, you're more likely to find one that doesn't have it that day?

Which manager was opposed to this, saying that if you throw out enough guys a game, you're more likely to find one that doesn't have it that day?

It wasn't a manager, it was Bill James in one of the Abstracts (I think '86, after the Royals won the WS in 1985).

-- MWE

In the less likely event that he's a force in the pen, you have the option of using him for 1+ since he's been developing that stamina in the minors.

That's my point. A lot of these guys aren't developing stamina. For example, Mark Melancon, the Yankees top relief prospect, fresh off of TJ, has thrown 79 innings in 34 appearances this year, but the reason he's throwing so many innings is that he's making such quick work of batters that he has to get more innings in order to develop his pitches. So, to whoever mentioned the ability to develop pitches, you are correct, but as far as developing the ability to go to multiple innings in the bigs...I'm not sold on that.

What are the pitches per appearance like in the minors?

Thanks, MWE. I thought that James might've quoted someone.

I thought James was quoting Herzog in that article, but, either way.

If they are spread out enough, yes. The problem in the majors - where winning games is paramount - is that if you use a reliever for multiple innings today, he might not be at his best tomorrow when you need him just as much if not more. This is, in large part, why you've seen the pattern of more relievers per team and shorter appearances per game. Teams have also gone to using relievers at the start of innings much more often than they did in the past; this gives the reliever time to warm up properly rather than having to be hurried into the game.

These rationales make some sense, for sure, but I think it's difficult to compare the value of using your pitchers optimally with the value of getting an extra roster spot. Perhaps my thoughts are colored too much by the fact that the 1982 Red Sox are the first team I really remember, and they had only 4 or 5 relievers most of the season, and one of the best bullpens of all time. If you get rid of the worst two pitches on most teams, you are left in most cases with guys who you're happy to pitch in high leverage situations. Anyways, I suspect there's no black or white rule that really applies here, and what makes the most sense will depend a lot on the personnel a team has. I'm looking forward to seeing your studies.

A lot of these guys aren't developing stamina. For example, Mark Melancon, the Yankees top relief prospect, fresh off of TJ, has thrown 79 innings in 34 appearances this year, but the reason he's throwing so many innings is that he's making such quick work of batters that he has to get more innings in order to develop his pitches.

I take your point. When we're talking about stamina, we're talking about pitches per appearance. Right? So what does it matter if Johnny Prospect builds that stamina over 1 or 2 or 3 innings of work? If Johnny gets to the point where he can throw 40-45 pitches in a single appearance if necessary, what's the difference? In the minors, maybe that level of stamina generally gets him through 2+ innings. In the majors, maybe it only gets him through 1 and 2/3rds against a good lineup running up lots of deep counts on him.

Innings aren't really the appropriate unit of measure. To use an extreme example, I can go out and no-hit some Little League team for 5 innings on 40-45 pitches, but that doesn't mean I have the ability to pitch multiple innings in MLB. However, if we trust the Red Sox to do a reasonably good job of tuning their prospects to the appropriate level of competition, then I think it's reasonable to infer that giving these guys regular 1+ IP outings is helping them build stamina to do the same at the major league level. We could drill down more and look at pitches/inning and stuff like that, but I'm not that fussed about it.

Tangential point that I couldn't work into the main body of this response:
Getting used to the process of warm up, pitch an inning, rest while your team hits, get back up and pitch another inning. That's a benefit to multi-inning relief appearances regardless of the level of competition.

Getting used to the process of warm up, pitch an inning, rest while your team hits, get back up and pitch another inning. That's a benefit to multi-inning relief appearances regardless of the level of competition.

There's also the issue of developing the confidence to know that you can get guys out for two innings if you need to.

I was just thinking - does anyone remember the side plot in Brewster's Millions, where Monty Brewster keeps insisting that he can get anyone out "for three innings?" If they remade that movie nowadays, it would probably be "I can get out any two left-handed hitters in a row."

EDIT: and, of course, they'd have had to do some tricks to make Richard Pryor look left-handed.

I thought James was quoting Herzog in that article

He was actually trashing Whitey - who had used five pitchers in the fifth inning of this game.

-- MWE

He's not a pitcher, but since this is the latest minor league thread:

Lars Anderson has settled in at Portland to the tune of .346/.426/.596 (1.022 OPS) entering tonight. Pretty damned impressive for a guy approaching his 21st birthday.

Lars is crushing it. He's surged back ahead of Reddick who's sucking it up at AA. Go Lars!

This is on a different roster topic. I just read on ESPN that the Red Sox put in a waiver claim and are working to acquire Brian Giles:
http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=3523657

While Giles is exactly the kind of high OBP guy Theo likes, I don't understand where they intend use him:
It would make the most sense if either Bay or Drew were injured. Perhaps it means that Ortiz is injured? Lowell may be hurt, but that wouldn't open up a spot in the lineup for Giles (unless he can play 1B).

Giles is a very useful guy to have on the team. His offensive numbers would be significantly better outside of Petco. I just don't see where Giles fits in.

They could either dump Crisp or send Ellsbury to Pawtucket and go with a Bay/Drew/Giles starting trio in the OF, or they could give one of those three a 1B mitt and tell him to take some grounders.

The other problem with any proposed move for Giles is that the Padres really should keep him next year. They have a bargain priced $9M option on him for 2009, as well as the good fortune to play in the NL West, where any team with the hint of a pulse is a contender for next year. And he's a local dude who loves San Diego.

The Red Sox, as Dan points out, would realize peculiarly little value from Giles compared to the average team, and the Padres have no reason to move him for anything less than a legitimate prospect package. The rumors of discussions between the Red Sox and Padres sound to me like Theo putting in due diligence after making the waiver claim for no reason other than to block the Rays.

I think it's more than just talking to the Padres to make it look like it wasn't a #### block on the Rays. The team lacks depth in the OF after trading Moss. I wouldn't be surprised to see the trade go through with conditions of not picking up the option (and possibly not allowing the Red Sox to offer arbitration) so that Giles could go back to San Diego next year on a 2-3 year deal. Remember that Theo and Towers have a good working relationship, so a handshake deal like that would be possible.

I can go out and no-hit some Little League team for 5 innings on 40-45 pitches

Sadly, I'm pretty sure an average LL team would knock me around...

He's not trying to make it look like he wasn't blocking the Rays. He's just checking to see if any deal for Giles might make sense for the Sox.

I agree that I don't want to part with prospects to get him (see the thread on the main board), but he's a really good hitter outside Petco.

He's not trying to make it look like he wasn't blocking the Rays. He's just checking to see if any deal for Giles might make sense for the Sox.

Right. This isn't all for show - once you've made a claim for a player as good as Giles, and you have the exclusive right to trade for him, you absolutely should look into a trade. And who knows, maybe the Padres think Oscar Tejeda or Dan Bard or somebody is totally awesome, and there's maybe an opening for a trade. Odds are heavily against any deal coming to be, but there's no reason not to talk to the Padres in good faith, and I'm pretty confident that's what Theo is doing.

Dan's theory (agreeing to not pick up Giles option, and allowing him to re-sign with SD) is interesting. It essentially depends on how much Giles is worth on the free agent market. I would think his value would be significanltly higher if he played outside of SD (as so many teams never take "park factors" into account. (everyone here would have predicted Chan Ho Park's problems going from LA to TEX, for example).

IIRC, Giles could have gotten a lot more last time around but took less to go to San Diego. I wouldn't be surprised if he did so again, but they might not want to bank on that.

Here's another guy who's hitting well at AA: Zach Daeges is putting up a .305/.413/.457 line. He's got no position and he's 24 but at least he's hitting!

Buster Olney said on BBTN that the two teams have agreed to a deal, and they're just waiting for Giles to waive his no-trade.

It better be for a damn good prospect. I have no idea why the hell the Yankees didn't claim him. We're still looking at a lineup that has at least one of Betemit, Melky, and Sexson in it every night.

It better be for a damn good prospect. I have no idea why the hell the Yankees didn't claim him. We're still looking at a lineup that has at least one of Betemit, Melky, and Sexson in it every night.

Well the Mets are running Endy Chavez out there in left. There are a lot of teams that probably should have had interest in Giles.

Yeah, probably a good prospect like CJ Henry.

Well the Mets are running Endy Chavez out there in left. There are a lot of teams that probably should have had interest in Giles.

Yeah, what up with that? There are like 10 teams who could possibly contend who could use Giles more than the Red Sox. Having Giles would be nice, but it's kind of a crazy luxury. Seems like they need a bullpen arm more.

There are like 10 teams who could possibly contend who could use Giles more than the Red Sox.

Whoever picks him up pays $5 million* for 2 months of him. Teams' budgets are pretty well set at this point, and taking on another $5 million at this stage isn't as universally easy as it would seem.

* He makes $9 million now, making the pro-rated share $3 million. But if he's traded his salary gets bumped up $2 million, payable by the team trading for him.

I take your point. When we're talking about stamina, we're talking about pitches per appearance. Right? So what does it matter if Johnny Prospect builds that stamina over 1 or 2 or 3 innings of work? If Johnny gets to the point where he can throw 40-45 pitches in a single appearance if necessary, what's the difference? In the minors, maybe that level of stamina generally gets him through 2+ innings. In the majors, maybe it only gets him through 1 and 2/3rds against a good lineup running up lots of deep counts on him.

Innings aren't really the appropriate unit of measure. To use an extreme example, I can go out and no-hit some Little League team for 5 innings on 40-45 pitches, but that doesn't mean I have the ability to pitch multiple innings in MLB. However, if we trust the Red Sox to do a reasonably good job of tuning their prospects to the appropriate level of competition, then I think it's reasonable to infer that giving these guys regular 1+ IP outings is helping them build stamina to do the same at the major league level. We could drill down more and look at pitches/inning and stuff like that, but I'm not that fussed about it.

Seems like we're talking in circles, but what I was saying is that they aren't building up any extra stamina in any way shapre or form, as best I can tell. They're throwing the same number of pitches they would throw in a 1 inning outing when they get to the majors, but that number of pitchers is good for 2 or 3 innings in the minors.

Having Giles would be nice, but it's kind of a crazy luxury. Seems like they need a bullpen arm more.

Yeah. I thought they should have been in on Chad Bradford.

Yeah. I thought they should have been in on Chad Bradford.

They've been down that road before.

They've been down that road before.

And he was sort of OK, despite having injury problems. He's healthy now. He's had an ERA under 3.50 for 6 of the last 8 seasons. He's a groundball pitcher, and they have a pretty good defensive infield.

Yeah. I thought they should have been in on Chad Bradford.

I'm surprised they didn't pick him up, what with his white skin and all.

/sarcasm

Yeah. I thought they should have been in on Chad Bradford.

They've been down that road before.

True, but should those 20 innings trump Bradford's overall record and projection? I can see, maybe, that the team got scared by his sudden drop in K/9, and that they have scouting / observational evidence suggesting that he's not the pitcher he used to be, but his run in 2005 should be a pretty minor concern.

Also, Giles blocked the trade. No news I could find on the content of the negotiations, though I guess that's a moot point.

True, but should those 20 innings trump Bradford's overall record and projection? I can see, maybe, that the team got scared by his sudden drop in K/9, and that they have scouting / observational evidence suggesting that he's not the pitcher he used to be, but his run in 2005 should be a pretty minor concern.

1) He wasn't that bad in 2005. You'd have to take 2005 Bradford over three or four of the guys they have right now.

2) He's such an extreme groundball pitcher that judging him by his strikeout rate probably isn't the best idea. His strikeout rate is down a bit, but his walk rate is down too, and his GB/FB ratio is !!4.89!! this year. He's doing Chad Bradford things.

It could be that the money was just more than they thought was worth it for what they'd get, or that they had informal talks with the Orioles and learned that the Orioles wanted a better player than they thought was worth it, and so they just decided not to block the player, figuring that the Rays wouldn't take on that much salary.

I'm really not sure if you guys are ready for the Lars Anderson era. Thankfully, this off-season we will be trading Youkilis for Madison Bumgarner and Pablo Sandoval to clear the way for him.

I'm really not sure if you guys are ready for the Lars Anderson era.

I sure am. He's raking, dude.

Really, with Lowell getting up there, Youks can go back to third to make room for him.

Josh Reddick's turned it around like crazy in Portland, too.

Anderson's MLE for these 90 AB is about 290/380/460. It's a function of how insane his on-contact numbers are in Portland that he could get an equivalent OPS above 800 while striking out in 40% of his equivalent ABs. With sub-Ryan Howard on-contact numbers, he'd be hitting .250 or so.

I'm not saying I'm not really excited about Anderson, or that there's anything bad about his AA numbers, but he looks like he'll meet some struggles and need some time for adjustment before he hits the majors, I'd say around September 2010.

Matt, for Christ's sake, he's only 20 and pounding double-A pitching. Even if he backslides some, he's waaaayyyy ahead of the game at this point.

Beckett has numbness and tingling in his right arm.

Should we start thinking about internal rotation solutions? Beckett, well, yeah. Wakefield's back, but he's also 47 and having shoulder issues - I'm not counting on a full season. Byrd is a place-filler, a 95 ERA+ guy more likely on the downswing than the upswing. Hell, they've only got four bodies right now, with two being Wake and Byrd.

-Buchholz? The obvious choice statistically, as mgl will tell you. But it would be pretty much insane to bring him up to Boston right now, and there's only another start or two left in Portland (they are on track for the Eastern League playoffs, so that might snag Buchholz another game on the farm.) And even if he pitches well, would it be right for his future development, and current success, to throw him back into a pennant race? I hope so, but it's hard to see. Either way, the call will be based on factors that we know nothing about from this distance.

-Colon? He threw four good innings this week, but he's still two starts away from Boston. He's definitely in the plans. (Has anyone remarked on how much Colon reminds them of an old Duquette pick up? Theo's been trying to grab up injured flyers, too, but he's kind of sucked at it. Colon's a nice change, though how he pitches in September will make a big difference in the collective memory of big bart.)

-Bowden? Well, the simplest reading of his statistics is that he deserves a shot. He dominated AA, and his AAA stats are picking up nicely, 18 IP, 15 H, 6 R, 2 BB, 15 K in his last three starts. The HRs are a tad bit high and the Ks a tad bit low in AAA, but if you add up the Portland and Pawtucket stats, he should translate to an average MLB pitcher, at least. The question, of course, is whether the statistical translation picks up everything there is to know about his chances of adjusting to the majors, whether a jump to the majors at 21 would be the best thing for his development, whether the current straits of the team make taking a small (mid-sized?) chance on Bowden's development worthwhile, and so on. And we don't know. I'd be interested in what Temple thinks, and if he's heard anything from the club about Bowden's plans. I know we were talking earlier about calling up Bowden, and it seemed unlikely, but the main roadblock then was concern about starting Bowden's arb clock, and events seem to have overridden that particular source of caution. If he's actually ready, he should come up.

-Zink? Not with Wakefield healthy, it seems, and even so... I missed the game, but I presume it was ugly.

-Hansack? He's improved over the year, but a guy who's too hittable in AAA doesn't seem like what you want in a pennant race.

-Masterson? Can't imagine a re-conversion to starting is in the cards. No one mentioned at the time that Masterson would be useful as further rotation depth, but it looks like a slightly more questionable move in hindsight.

EDIT: forgot Masterson. who else have I forgotten?

I am in favor of giving Bowden a shot.

What about Bard??

Too risky to rush him?

Is it numbness or tingling?

I don't see Bowden as a great idea, much as I'd like to see him at the Major League level. He doesn't project to be a ton better than someone like Hansack (who has now put together 3 straight very tidy seasons in AA/AAA and a 133 ERA+ in the Majors). To go screwing around with Bowden while he's still getting the hang of AAA seems like an unnecessary risk with Lobsterman around.

On the pitching front, how bad do the signing of Schilling and the picking up of Tavarez's option look now? That's $12 mil. that could have been used on someone useful. And what about CC Sabathia? Would it have been worthwhile to try to land him, under the old adage that you can never have too much pitching? Or how about Santana?

Zink? Not with Wakefield healthy, it seems, and even so... I missed the game, but I presume it was ugly.

It was perfectly tolerable, then very ugly in the 5th. He was on 3 days' rest, too, so I can understand running out of gas in a MLB debut, even with a knuckleballer.

What about Bard??

He isn't a starter. And according to TempleU in another thread, Bard has absolutely no idea where the ball is going when he throws it - AA hitters are bailing him out because his fastball is so nasty, but he would get eaten alive by big leaguers.

On the pitching front, how bad do the signing of Schilling and the picking up of Tavarez's option look now? That's $12 mil. that could have been used on someone useful. And what about CC Sabathia? Would it have been worthwhile to try to land him, under the old adage that you can never have too much pitching? Or how about Santana?

I agree to a point, certainly about the money, but the Red Sox actually do have excellent pitching depth.

Beckett
Matsuzaka
Lester
Wakefield
Buchholz
Masterson
Colon
Byrd

Not to mention Zink and Hansack. And this is all with losing Schilling for the year *and* releasing Tavarez. That's plenty of tolerable to excellent starting pitching - there are few clubs in the league who could run out as many decent starters. Besides, if you had traded for Santana, you're losing at least one of those guys - it's a lateral move in terms of depth. Sabathia - well, I wonder what the Sox would have had to offer - Anderson + ? Would it be worth it?

Edit: Now that I re-read you post, Darren, I don't think you were really trying to say the Red Sox don't have enough depth, just that it would have been nice too have good healthy starting pitchers. Right?

Besides, if you had traded for Santana, you're losing at least one of those guys - it's a lateral move in terms of depth. Sabathia - well, I wonder what the Sox would have had to offer - Anderson + ? Would it be worth it?

How excited should I be getting about Anderson? His strikeouts and Howard-ian contact rates scare me, but his youth and numbers this year are starting to freak me out. I don't want to get too excited with a small sample, but he seems pretty special. I'm surprised the hype machine hasn't kicked into full gear on him yet.

How excited should I be getting about Anderson?

Very; he's really good. Punishes the ball to left/left-center, has a nice patient approach, and by most accounts plays good defence. Questions remain about his ability to pull the ball with authority and his K rate (as you noted). ETA in Boston is looking like early 2010.