During the regular season, the eight-man bullpen, three-man bench (four in the NL) strategy:
| is optimal for most teams and should be the norm. |  4 (3.54%) |
| makes sense for a considerable number of teams, around half. | 13 (11.50%) |
| usually constitutes poor roster construction. | 46 (40.71%) |
| is categorically bad; for some teams seven relievers might be too many. | 37 (32.74%) |
| Bah! (insert Fake Old Hoss Radbourn epithet here) | 13 (11.50%) |
113 votes | 13 featured comments
I did consider adding "some teams might be better off with 9 relievers" option.
I think the real question is, why is the eight-man pen so popular with major league managers and GMs? (Most) of these guys aren't idiots ... sure, there is an element of group-think in MLB front offices, but it's not like AA has shown this weakness.
It is just bizarre. In a high offence, high pitch-count environment, it is reasonable to expect that clubs will need more pitchers. That environment has come and gone, and what is left is group-think, plain and simple. At heart, it reflects a failure to adapt.
Good question - AL Contenders with some shot at playoffs...
7 man: NYY, Boston, Tampa Bay, Baltimore, White Sox, Detroit, Texas, Cleveland, Angels
8 man: Oakland
7 man: NYY, Boston, Tampa Bay, Baltimore, White Sox, Detroit, Texas, Cleveland, Angels
8 man: Oakland
...A.A. has said,"... having only two or three Relievers pitching late in games for a contendingTeam (like Toronto) ...could wear those Pitchers, out." He said,"we need four or five Pitchers to do the job." ... (That's as accurate as I can get).
So Sergio Santos, Casey Janssen, Brad Lincoln, Steve Delabar make Four. Decisions need to be made on soon-to-be Free Agents: Carlos Villanueva, Brandon Lyon. When does the third piece we received in the 10 player deal, David Carpenter join the Bullpen. How about our only LHP Aaron Loup?
The only reason Oakland has an 8 man pen is due to the massive amount of innings the pen chewed up vs the Jays. Griffin DL'd, Taylor sent down, 2 relievers called up. They only had 7 and will probably go back to 7 once the pen is rested. 8 man only makes sense if you have really crappy starters and you actually want to win ball games. You can go with 7, leave the starters in for an average of an extra inning or so each and accept the corresponding shelling, or pull them earlier and use the bullpen to cover the extra innings.
There is a 3rd alternative, which is improving your starting staff, whether by trade or through Free Agency. This is an option maybe the Jays braintrust could consider. Important note: by improving, I don't mean adding more crappy starters, e.g. J. A. Happ.
There is a 3rd alternative, which is improving your starting staff, whether by trade or through Free Agency. This is an option maybe the Jays braintrust could consider. Important note: by improving, I don't mean adding more crappy starters, e.g. J. A. Happ.
I'm of the view that the 8-man bullpen is largely unnecessary. For most of the year the Blue Jays have had 5-6 relievers who wouldn't be/can't be sent down, with essentially a revolving door for the other spot(s). None of the Aeroplan Super Elites have really stood out, so I don't see why the team couldn't use some sort of rotation for the final couple of spots in a 7-man bullpen. There are enough candidates for those spots that the 10-day minimum stay in the minors shouldn't cause much of a problem.
One thing that has surprised me is the number of right-handed relievers that now average less than an inning per appearance. Until recently only lefties would average less than an inning, but it looks like it might also become the norm for right-handers eventually. It's interesting -- teams increasingly use their bullpens to gain the platoon advantage, but doing so 1) reduces their ability to counter such moves while on offence as there are fewer guys available to pinch-hit, and 2) results in more innings being pitched by guys who might not otherwise be in the major leagues. I'm not entirely sure if teams are coming out ahead by going with bigger bullpens and more specialization by relievers.
One thing that has surprised me is the number of right-handed relievers that now average less than an inning per appearance. Until recently only lefties would average less than an inning, but it looks like it might also become the norm for right-handers eventually. It's interesting -- teams increasingly use their bullpens to gain the platoon advantage, but doing so 1) reduces their ability to counter such moves while on offence as there are fewer guys available to pinch-hit, and 2) results in more innings being pitched by guys who might not otherwise be in the major leagues. I'm not entirely sure if teams are coming out ahead by going with bigger bullpens and more specialization by relievers.
When the matchups become tilted toward pitchers in the late innings, as with deeper bullpens and shorter benches they are, the games become much more predictable and stable. That's probably part of the appeal. Who likes variance? I mean other than fans, and the house.
I think the big thing is how pitchers, when facing fewer batters, can be effective with as little as 1 solid ML pitch. Suddenly a guy who would've been lucky to reach AA in the 60's can be valuable in the majors in the 10's. Meanwhile, by providing a break for the top guys (closer, setup) you get them to be more effective as well.
With hitters the opposite is true. Fewer plate appearances = lower level of performance for most. Some could use rest via platoons or similar arrangements but with double headers almost entirely in the history books and rules about how many days on the road and games in a row a team can play the physical stress has been cut back. In most cases adding another bat would just be an extra guy sitting around doing nothing.
For an example, in 1985 the Jays won the most games they ever have, 99, with 2 almost useless players on the bench in Lou Thornton (56 games, 75 PA, 58 OPS+, 8 games with aLI over 1 [ie: any kind of pressure]) and Manny Lee (64 games, 43 PA, 20 OPS+, 11 games with aLI over 1) - both rule 5 picks who were on the team all year. For comparison, Yan Gomes has had aLI over 1 14 times this year, Gose 5 times, Vizquel 10 times.
I see Gomes being very valuable going forward with his ability to cover 3B, CA, 1B, and even LF (8 innings in majors so far). Ideally you'd have a 3 man bench able to cover everything (Gomes, a middle infielder, backup catcher or outfielder) with multiple outfielders who can cover CF (Rasmus, Gose) then your 4th bench slot could be for a platoon or to open it up for an 8th reliever.
With hitters the opposite is true. Fewer plate appearances = lower level of performance for most. Some could use rest via platoons or similar arrangements but with double headers almost entirely in the history books and rules about how many days on the road and games in a row a team can play the physical stress has been cut back. In most cases adding another bat would just be an extra guy sitting around doing nothing.
For an example, in 1985 the Jays won the most games they ever have, 99, with 2 almost useless players on the bench in Lou Thornton (56 games, 75 PA, 58 OPS+, 8 games with aLI over 1 [ie: any kind of pressure]) and Manny Lee (64 games, 43 PA, 20 OPS+, 11 games with aLI over 1) - both rule 5 picks who were on the team all year. For comparison, Yan Gomes has had aLI over 1 14 times this year, Gose 5 times, Vizquel 10 times.
I see Gomes being very valuable going forward with his ability to cover 3B, CA, 1B, and even LF (8 innings in majors so far). Ideally you'd have a 3 man bench able to cover everything (Gomes, a middle infielder, backup catcher or outfielder) with multiple outfielders who can cover CF (Rasmus, Gose) then your 4th bench slot could be for a platoon or to open it up for an 8th reliever.
The effect of the 7 or 8 man pen is felt not only in the late innings. As platooning becomes less common, starting pitchers are met more often with marginal hitters in the lineup who really ought to be platooned. A team that went against the grain with a shorter bullpen might lose a smidgen in the late innings, but would gain a significant advantage in the earlier innings. Platoon players can be had real cheap on the open market because no one really wants them with the short benches. Sometimes it pays to be contrarian.
Ideally, you'd have FIVE men on your bench, because your six relievers would aim throw 30 pitches per appearance if effective (and one would be a versatile player to handle genuine long man duties, capable of throwing 45-60 pitches if needed).
Five men on your bench are:
1. a backup catcher;
2. an infielder who hits lefthanded and can platoon at a spot;
3. an infielder who plays all three positions and plays well at one of them;
4. a fourth outfielder;
5. a genuine bat from one side or the other. Ideally, he can hit from the other side from your fourth OF or your DH.
That's assuming you have a guy you have to carry as a DH, which for teams with limited resources is always a pretty good idea since they are cheaper.
I abhor large bullpens. The Jays NEVER get their 13th pitcher enough work, and in the days when they carried 12, rarely got the 12th guy enough work. It also discourages you from using your top three guys efficiently; the Blue Jays rarely even two of their best three into close games these days.
Five men on your bench are:
1. a backup catcher;
2. an infielder who hits lefthanded and can platoon at a spot;
3. an infielder who plays all three positions and plays well at one of them;
4. a fourth outfielder;
5. a genuine bat from one side or the other. Ideally, he can hit from the other side from your fourth OF or your DH.
That's assuming you have a guy you have to carry as a DH, which for teams with limited resources is always a pretty good idea since they are cheaper.
I abhor large bullpens. The Jays NEVER get their 13th pitcher enough work, and in the days when they carried 12, rarely got the 12th guy enough work. It also discourages you from using your top three guys efficiently; the Blue Jays rarely even two of their best three into close games these days.