When you look at the individual parts of last year it’s easy to see how much black magic and team chemistry can accomplish. I would push back a little on the failed starter as if they are bad throwers, it may just really be excellent at 2 pitches and not much else, which you can survive 3-6 batters.
I think there’s some chance that Stearns leans on a tried reliever, but my guess is not likely. I mean I still cant get over Blake Trienen in the WS, who I couldnt even have told you was still in baseball, yet…
Several years back, the Yankees saw a market gap between starters and relievers, in that starters were making great money and relievers were paying relatively little. So, rather than chase the high dollar starters, they assembled the best bullpen in the game. That got them to Game 7 of the ALCS against the Astros. Take Snell: six great innings per start, or about 170 innings at $36MM per year. Or, three very good middle relievers at $10MM each, covering about 180 innings. What the difference?
I think the difference is that if you don't have the good starter, then even if you have three good middle relievers , the game would be over before they would come in.
I really wish that Stearns would invest in building a great bullpen. Wish for a new closer as well. Diaz is just way too erratic. Would like Diaz's brother from Cinci. Gus, Snell already signed with the Dodgers.
With the salaries that solid relievers get not being all that high, it seems to me that it would be well worth putting $20 - $25 million into a few good relievers. One at $10 mill and another 2 at $5 = $8M each. A small piece of the budget overall for what could be a huge difference maker.
There have definitely been teams that have relied on impenetrable bullpens that come to mind - the Reds with the nasty boys, this past season's Guardians to name just two.
When you look at the individual parts of last year it’s easy to see how much black magic and team chemistry can accomplish. I would push back a little on the failed starter as if they are bad throwers, it may just really be excellent at 2 pitches and not much else, which you can survive 3-6 batters.
I think there’s some chance that Stearns leans on a tried reliever, but my guess is not likely. I mean I still cant get over Blake Trienen in the WS, who I couldnt even have told you was still in baseball, yet…
Relievers are a mercurial bunch.
If you're a starter and you can only go thru a lineup one time, you've pretty much failed.
Reading your post made me think a guy like Trevor Williams makes a lot of sense. Will he settle being a swingman again or will he want to start?
Several years back, the Yankees saw a market gap between starters and relievers, in that starters were making great money and relievers were paying relatively little. So, rather than chase the high dollar starters, they assembled the best bullpen in the game. That got them to Game 7 of the ALCS against the Astros. Take Snell: six great innings per start, or about 170 innings at $36MM per year. Or, three very good middle relievers at $10MM each, covering about 180 innings. What the difference?
I think the difference is that if you don't have the good starter, then even if you have three good middle relievers , the game would be over before they would come in.
Garret Cole!
I really wish that Stearns would invest in building a great bullpen. Wish for a new closer as well. Diaz is just way too erratic. Would like Diaz's brother from Cinci. Gus, Snell already signed with the Dodgers.
With the salaries that solid relievers get not being all that high, it seems to me that it would be well worth putting $20 - $25 million into a few good relievers. One at $10 mill and another 2 at $5 = $8M each. A small piece of the budget overall for what could be a huge difference maker.
There have definitely been teams that have relied on impenetrable bullpens that come to mind - the Reds with the nasty boys, this past season's Guardians to name just two.