2017-18 Phillies Off-Season News/Notes/Discussion

[tom81]

If you burn the middle infielder as a 6th inning pinch hitter, you do need to have another infielder if you pinch run for a Franco late.

You also need another MI if you burn your MI early and then you double switch for one of Franco, Crawford, or Hernandez.

Of course I kind of hate the 4-man bench (the rosters really need to increase because pitching usage has changed).

Honestly, this is is NOT a positive direction for the game I love, and my guess is that most baseball fans agree with me. Look, I know I have been a fan longer than most here [though allentown and julio also remember the '64 Phillies] so I get that some of my comments are viewed as coming from someone still pining for the 80's. Not so.

Agree 100% CD, 11 is plenty & solid versatile bench is more valuable than pitcher #12 & 13. Keep roster at 25 too.

And yet, you would think with all the analytics and the match-ups and the positional flexibility you'd want more quivers in your hitting arrow, even if you don't need to double-switch or defensively replace as frequently.

I’ve been a phan since 1964 and I disagree with the sentiment expressed in these four quotes. I’m a believer of maintaining the structure of the game and by that I believe in maintaining the rules of the game not the way it has been played in the past. Baseball has basically had a 25 man roster since 1914 and we should not change it now because player usage has changed. http://www.baseball-almanac.com/articles/baseball_rosters.shtml

As to the construction of that 25 man roster you either believe in the analytics or you don’t. If you do you believe in the analytics you believe that modern starting pitchers become ineffective after going through the lineup two times. With this assumption you compare the results of leaving the starter in while ineffective, with the traditional 5-man bench, against the results of replacing him with an effective relief pitcher in the 5th or 6th inning and going with the shorter bench, because you are forced to keep more relief pitchers. The analytics are obviously pointing to the possibility of the latter approach since teams are looking to try it out.

I believe that the increased decline of the effectiveness of the starting pitcher after multiple times through the lineup has a lot to do with technology. Players now have access to tape (and I wouldn’t be surprised if some teams have virtual reality simulations) of opposing pitchers. This allows them to really become familiar with a pitcher’s stuff and tendencies and so they can adjust to it quicker now when seeing it live. I believe most of the pitchers of the earlier era would also lose their effectiveness at the same point as modern pitchers do. The few great pitchers of the past would still be able to go three times through the modern lineups as today’s great pitchers can. The next phase of adaptation to this change I think will involve more position flexibility. Having your 4th bench player able to play both in the OF and IF is one development. Another is training some of your relief pitchers to actually be able to hit! An Adam Haseley type of player could go through the minors as an OF and relief pitcher and be able to fill a valuable role on a modern roster. Ohtani???

If MLB wants to keep the games moving, perhaps limiting the number of pitchers on a staff would help the cause since it might take away the number of RPs for the manager to call on in a game. Mandate a twenty-five man roster; eleven pitchers and fourteen position players.

I hate mandating things that stifle innovation. If you want to shorten the games it can be done without changing the fundamental rules and imposing new ones. My two cents on changes to shorten the game.
1. Shorten the time between innings. The owners and players both make so much money at the fans expense. Give some of that back to the fans by doing without the extra commercials between innings.
2. Limit the number of warmup pitches the relief pitcher can take. They are already warmed up in the pen, three off the real mound should be enough.

[andyb]

I think analytics has caused all these pitching changes. The pitching platoon advantages are similar to the hitting platoon advantages. Where the pitching analytics advances have been more important is that they can take one-dimensional pitchers, get them to throw 20 pitches at 98 mph and have them be much more effective than an average starter in the 6th inning in their 3rd time around the lineup.

So it is not the LOOGYs that have really changed the game (and that a 2-3 batter minimum would help solve), but it is pitching usage that has changed. There are legitimate health issues around this too. If we want everyone to throw harder they need more rest (hence 6-day rotations). If we want to turn 4 innings over to the bullpen and we train these guys to be good for 1 inning, we need 4-5 relief pitchers every day. So you need an extra reliever or two because everyone can't throw 80 games.

A roster size increase would be an acknowledgement that analytics have changed the game. I am not sure rule changes to force us back to previous usage patterns would be seen as a plus. Football has had similar changes. If there were a more limited substitution rule (maybe only on first downs) you would need players that were less specialized and had more stamina - like in the 1960s and 1970s. Those players probably get hurt less often because they are not always bigger and faster. But that would change the game to combat analytics and is that a good thing?

[tom81]

A roster size increase would be an acknowledgement that analytics have changed the game.

True but it is not the one that I think that should be made. Just because a relief pitcher can’t throw more than X before he suffers health risks doesn’t mean he will suffer health risks pinch hitting. Some of these relief pitchers have to learn to hit. They can be the DH in minor league games to prepare for this added role.

[andyb]

The roster size increase really has to do with keeping the pitchers healthy and not whether they can hit. Analytics has changed pitching usage to the point where managers are pushed to use pitchers in these 1-inning outings to back up 5-inning starters because that is the most effective way to get outs. Without an increase in roster size managers will continue to use pitchers in the way they are most effective, and that will get pitchers hurt.

The larger roster size removes an incentive to abuse pitchers. Right now we are almost training pitchers to throw hard for 3-5 years and then they get hurt before they become expensive. Then load up another Hector Neris or Luis Garcia and let them throw their arm out. Adam Morgan now throws 96. I suspect it is partly because the team remade him into a 1-inning pitcher. Any bets on whether Morgan can stay healthy after a couple of seasons of 70+ outings throwing 96?

[allentown]

A roster size increase would be an acknowledgement that analytics have changed the game. I am not sure rule changes to force us back to previous usage patterns would be seen as a plus. Football has had similar changes. If there were a more limited substitution rule (maybe only on first downs) you would need players that were less specialized and had more stamina - like in the 1960s and 1970s. Those players probably get hurt less often because they are not always bigger and faster. But that would change the game to combat analytics and is that a good thing?

No, saying the roster must be changed to make analytics more effective is like saying I've got this great mathematical model of a scientific, sociological, or political system and it's really neat and I really love it, so somebody has to change the world so that my model describes it better. Analytics is crap and worthless if we have to adjust the world for it to work and have value. In modeling parlance, the rules of baseball are called a constraint and analytical models must adapt to these real-life mistakes. Otherwise, the analytics are kind of trite and sorely wanting. We know that mediocre pitchers with good command can look great once around the lineup/league so if analytics say that runs can most effectively be limited by having three pitchers each pitch 3 innings and with relievers on hand, in case one of the 3-inning ;pitchers is having an off day, so we can really optimize what analytics tells us if we allow 15 pitchers per team. Of course, fans like offense and the long ball, and analytics tell us that there is a L/R split, so perhaps we should allow each team to carry both a right-handed and left-handed lineup, with the best fielder at each position playing D, so that a left hand hitter never has to face a LHP.

Analytics have to work in the real world Part of that is the trade off that if you carry 13 pitchers, you only can carry 12 position players. Good analytical people should be able to advise whether the 13th pitcher is worth the tradeoff. If it's not, then this great analytical innovation in the use of pitcher will have to be rethought. A defensive coordinator knows that for some offensive plays, it's better to have 5 DBs and only 2 LBs. Against other offensive plays, pulling the 3rd LB hurts the defense. Why not just end the confusion and let the defense put an extra player on the field?

[andyb]

No, saying the roster must be changed to make analytics more effective is like saying I've got this great mathematical model of a scientific, sociological, or political system and it's really neat and I really love it, so somebody has to change the world so that my model describes it better.

That is not what I said though. I said analytics has changed pitching usage. It is also why we have 13-man pitching staffs. My contention is they are not going to change because they get better results. So we need to change the roster size to acknowledge that.

If we don't we are just going to get lots of pitching injuries and abuse on young arms. Because the analytics tells teams they get better results with that strategy (and it costs less! because you are always recycling young arms to abuse).

[tom81]

The roster size increase really has to do with keeping the pitchers healthy and not whether they can hit.

And my point with having a pitcher who can hit was to keep them healthy in the restraint of a 25 man roster. The team will only have 4 position players available to pitch hit and still will have the desire to pitch hit for poor hitting pitchers. It will be a competitive advantage to have a good hitting relief pitcher.

[zambonir]

There will be a DH in the next CBA anyway.

[phillychuck]

If Ben Lively makes the starting staff he can pinch-hit. He's shown decent power and contact ability.

[allentown]

IMHO, that's sort of double-speak. You say analytics shows that this is the best way to use pitchers, but then point out that this way is not sustainable, because it causes too many pitcher injuries without an expanded pitching staff and roster. In that case, the analytics have come up with a sub-optimal solution. The answer to that is to find an optimal solution, not to change the roster size in order to make a sub-optimal solution optimal. There are other, likely even more optimal solutions than the one you mention, if we are willing to increase roster size to, say 30, to enable them. Changing the roster size or any major rule will always lead to different optimal solutions. To the extent that the rule change is the relaxation of a constraint, the new optimum will be higher than the prior optimum.

Really not much point in this, however. Does increasing pitching performance actually benefit the game? A game which juices baseballs to give a better chance to the offense? If baseball wants better pitching, it is far simpler and cheaper to simply un-juice the baseball.

[phillychuck]

I think andyb is right that the teams are changing their pitching usage in order to optimize in-game results, and the best teams will find a way to manage the long-term damage within the context of a 25-man roster.

The way this is going to go (for the smart teams) is that they will use a 28 or 29 man roster with their AAA teams stashing relief pitchers (and an occasional position player like Floriman) for them. When a reliever gets over-used, they'll send him down for a while to recuperate, and bring up the next guy in line who is relatively fresh. They'll need to move a lot of bodies around the organization to keep guys from getting over-used, but that's why they pay the assistant GMs.

Then the optimal short-term solution overlaps with an optimal long-term solution that will keep arms healthy. Also, if the team doesn't make the playoffs, IPs can be managed in September as well. The Phils did some of this last season.

[andyb]

IMHO, that's sort of double-speak. You say analytics shows that this is the best way to use pitchers, but then point out that this way is not sustainable, because it causes too many pitcher injuries without an expanded pitching staff and roster.

It is more the analytics point to short term gain rather than the long term usage pattern that is good for an individual pitcher's health. I just don't think teams care about pitchers' health other than a couple obvious long term arms. Right now Nola's health is really the only arm that is good enough where the analytics might suggest to use him with some care. With a Velasquez the analytics probably say use him till the arm breaks. Then replace him with another low cost arm to use and abuse.

PC - it is kind of what you suggest. I will say the 6-man rotation option was available to the Dodgers last year because money bought them dept (i.e. using the 10-day DL to give everyone in-season breaks).

I am not sure there is a great fix to this. Pitchers that throw harder are better than pitchers that don't throw harder. Relievers that go 1 inning are more effective than the reliever in his second inning. A 2 or 3 batter rule helps a bit, but as I said the switches within the inning are only part of the problem. That rule would help more with game time than anything else. As long as teams can turn the one-dimensional reliever into an effective reliever there is incentive for teams to acquire these one-dimensional guys that throw hard. And since they are pretty easy to acquire, the incentive is not to keep them healthy. Only the Nolas (and Kershaws and Strasburgs) are really worth that attention.

[schillingfan]

No, saying the roster must be changed to make analytics more effective is like saying I've got this great mathematical model of a scientific, sociological, or political system and it's really neat and I really love it, so somebody has to change the world so that my model describes it better.

That is not what I said though. I said analytics has changed pitching usage. It is also why we have 13-man pitching staffs. My contention is they are not going to change because they get better results. So we need to change the roster size to acknowledge that.

If we don't we are just going to get lots of pitching injuries and abuse on young arms. Because the analytics tells teams they get better results with that strategy (and it costs less! because you are always recycling young arms to abuse).

I really agree with this. Sometimes rules have to recognize the reality of changes to the game, like bigger stronger football players means more injuries and injured quarterbacks hurt the game.

Reliever usage has changed and rules changes allowing more players can reduce injuries and thus better play when your best relievers aren't on the DL.

Length of games doesn't bother me, but rule changes that require a pitcher face more than one batter would be good, that ensures that increasing rosters for more pitchers doesn't mean a pitching change for each batter.

Appreciating tradition doesn't mean burying your head in the sand to avoid recognizing changing realities which are harming the game.

[schillingfan]

As long as teams can turn the one-dimensional reliever into an effective reliever there is incentive for teams to acquire these one-dimensional guys that throw hard. And since they are pretty easy to acquire, the incentive is not to keep them healthy. Only the Nolas (and Kershaws and Strasburgs) are really worth that attention.

This statement epitomizes the statement that relievers are fungible.

[zambonir]

Baseball tradition is rarely as traditional as we think it is. There are so many variables in the game (the DH, park sizes, mound, ball, length of season). Including this. And while the current analytics and usage trends are new, the overall trend of carrying more relievers and wanting a bigger bench isn't (in the DH/LOOGY era, at least).

The question for the MLBPA is simply one of money, I'd think. Do they want to create one more major league job/salary or fight for a larger share divided among the current roster size?

The Case For The 26-Man Roster

The 25-man roster was first created officially in 1920; before that, roster sizes varied from 16 to a limit of 21. Most teams carried small pitching staffs, as starters frequently threw complete games. The 25-man limit was in effect only from May 15 to September 1; many major league clubs would carry as many as five extra players back from spring training during the 1940s and 1950s. The minor leagues began complaining that their rosters were unstable in the early season, so in 1957 a 28-man limit was set; teams could still carry three "extra" players until May 15. In 1968, the May 15 date was eliminated and the 25-man roster limit set from the beginning of the season.

There it has stayed since, with a couple of exceptions: during a period of labor dispute from 1986-1989, the collective bargaining agreement provided for a "minimum" of 24 players, and teams cut their rosters accordingly, seemingly out of spite (they had also done this for half the season in 1978, until July 1). When MLB's season was delayed due to labor stoppages in 1990 and 1995, expanded rosters (27 players in 1990, 28 in 1995) were permitted for a short time when the season began.

But other than that, it's been 25 men from Opening Day until September 1 since 1968.

[LoneStarPhan]

I had forgotten that teams could carry those extra players at the start of the season when I first started following ML baseball.

[donaldorc]

Now that the Eagles have brought home a title for the great city of brotherly love, I predict that the Phillies, like the Eagles, will come out of nowhere, clinch a wild card berth on the last day of the season, and ride their hot wave right on through the World Series to bring another title to Philly! Go Phillies!

[California_Dreamin]

LoneStarPhan...yes, believe you became a phan in 1964 and that Phillie team carried Dave Bennett, Pat Corrales and Gary Kroll as their 26-28 members. Teams could carry 28 players till May 1.

I liked it and think teams should think about something similar now.

[schillingfan]

I would predict the Phillies up their offer to pitchers like Darvish. Seeing Jeff Lurie holding the trophy and the parade on Thursday is going to drive Middleton crazy. He caught the fever in 2008 and now Eagles are top dog in the city.

[LoneStarPhan]

I think a 27 man roster for the entire season would be a step in the right direction.

Somewhere in the back of my mind, I recall a season when the Phillies had 5 players on the roster who had to be carried because of the signing bonus rules in effect at the time. Over my early years as a phan, there were a number of players who had to be on the ML roster because of such rules. A catcher (Burke ??) comes to mind. I know I could look up some of this info and I may when I get a chance. I think Tom Qualters and Ted Kazanski also were in this category.

I know I first had some awareness of baseball by 1950 and had attended 4 major league games by then, but with no TV, I wouldn't say a really was a fan. I know I had some baseball cards (1949-51) but by the start of the 1952 season, I was actively collecting the Topps cards (new, larger format) and reading (over and over) the comic book on the NY Giants winning the 1951 pennant.

Most of the posters here don't really know how hard it was to get information on the team back in those days or how little information was actually available. Even getting the game score during the regular season was not easy if you didn't live in the area of your team.