Article: Late Inning Gas is Coming. Get Ready

[Sam Morley]

In recent years, the Twins have managed to stock the farm with flame throwers who project as late inning relievers. Several are projecting as shut down closers.

 

These days, MLB pitching staffs have evolved from two positions, starter and reliever, into several positions: Starter, long relief, LH specialist, 7th inning guy, set-up guy, and closer.The hierarchy moves two directions: long relievers want to be starters, 7th inning and set-up guys want to be closers (I don’t know what to say about the aspirations of LH specialists- they are special). Very few teams ever seem very interested in or able to utilize a closer by committee type of late inning relief system.

 

I’ve only been a TD member for about a year, and lurked for a couple years before then, and in that time, I can’t recall any standout discussions about closer by committee. But it seems like such a debate must have taken place somewhere along the way. So, hopefully I’m not opening some old ridiculous can of worms, beating a dead horse, or-r-r-r disturbing any sleeping dogs.

 

For the purposes of this piece, and in light of what the Twins have coming up over the next few years, I’m going to advocate for it. Although, calling such a system “closer by committee” doesn’t seem quite right. It seems more like the position of closer is just eliminated. There can really only be one closer. If you have multiple relievers who all pitch in save situations, they wouldn't all be called 'closer', would they? Ugh, what am I talking about?

 

Okay, this system would only work if you had three to five relievers all of closer quality. This doesn’t work if you have no relievers of closer quality and are just trying to puzzle it together playing match-ups. Neither does it work if you have one legit closer and a few guys who are okay. The Twins current relief corps could not do this. Maybe no team in baseball could. I think maybe the Royals could have done it last season. What they had in Herrera, Davis, and Holland was possibly unprecedented. It was also their ticket to the postseason and their key to success therein. It seems like any time a team has more than one successful late inning reliever, they will lose one in the following offseason. Either the closer leaves and the set-up guy becomes the new closer, or the set-up guy goes elsewhere to become a closer. So this is a market-driven issue as closers get more money than do other relievers, and teams aren’t yet willing to pay closer money to a non-closer.

 

So, in the event a team accumulates three or more closer types at once, how should theat team use them, and how can they keep them around? When I look at the Twins minor league relievers, I think these become serious questions. Here’s a list of dudes: Nick Burdi, J.T. Chargois, Jake Reed, Mason Melotakis (L), Zack Jones, Yorman Landa, Fernando Romero, Michael Cedaroth, Cameron Booser (L), Alex Meyer, CK Irby, Brandon Poulson, Cole Johnson, Tyler Jones, Todd Van Steensel, Brandon Peterson, and Corey Williams (L). This is admittedly a wild list. It includes pitchers from Rookie to AAA, a few guys who are still starting but get plenty of press as possible future closer types. 75% of them throw in the upper 90s (a few hit triple digits) and the ones who don’t still boast K rates around 10/9. All of them but Poulson have solid secondary offerings. Several of them have sustained significant injury, some have returned already, some are still in recovery.

 

So, hypothetically, Burdi, Reed, Chargois, Melotakis (L), and Meyer are all ready in 2016, and then Meyer doesn’t pan out as a starter. I pick these guys, because they all project as closers (if Meyer doesn’t cut it as a starter), they all throw gas, and they all are close enough to be up by 2016. You could push it back a season, and/or trade out names if you want. The point is that 2016-2017 is when the Twins should be back in business, and some combination of these guys could be ready. I think the Twins should be prepared to do something unorthodox with the situation, rather than trade what is perceived as excess or keep it stuffed in the minors or do a traditional 1, 2, 3 like the Royals, with Perkins at the top.

 

Maybe something like a back-end five man rotation would work. It wouldn’t be predictable like the starting rotation, and it could be entirely match-up based, or partially, but probably not reliant on the hot hand. It would ideally keep opposing offenses from preparing to face one closer. I think eventually most closers gain enough regular exposure that their effectiveness can diminish. When a team comes to play the Twins, I think their hitters prepare to face the starter, and Glen Perkins. I don’t think they prepare for Caleb Theilbar- not because he isn’t good, but because of the unpredictability of facing him and also the unpredictability of the situation in which you might face him.

 

If you are facing a closer, you know who it will be and you know the situation really counts. In one series you could face Perkins every night, and Theilbar not once. It seems like taking away the predictability of the closer position, thus taking away the ability of the offense to prepare, is a significant advantage. Especially, and maybe only, when the options to fill the role are multiple of comparable quality.

 

What are the obstacles to implementing this kind of system, or something like it? Are managers too attached to the reliability of the traditional system? Are relievers too attached to the hierarchy of the 7th inning, set-up, closer system and the financial consequences involved? It seems like now might be the time to challenge those obstacles, if they exist. There is a new manager who could be open to different ideas. The relievers will all be new major leaguers, ideally more focused on performance than on title and/or relative pay. If such a system were to prove successful, why not the pay accurately reflect the value of each man.

 

What am I missing here? Is this trying to reinvent the wheel? I don’t really know diddly about managing a pitching staff. I just see all those names about to be knocking on the door, and see those numbers attached to those names: 97mph, 98mph, 99mph, 100mph, 101mph, and think there’s got to be a way to put them all to work in equally contributive roles. Will everyone on the list make the show? Unlikely. Will all the ones who do be of closer quality? Unlikely…

 

…but the scouting reports do look pretty damn good.

 

Click here to view the article

[shs_59]

in 2016?

 

I'm already way past Perkins as the closer,  I think we'd be lucky if Perkins was pitching in the 7th inning regulary in 2016.

 

Melotakis and Reed?   I'd take top end middle relievers in the Majors right now from them.

 

Burdi , Chargois and maaaybe Zach Jones maybe they can develop into 8th inning guys or closers.

[Twodogs]

Late inning gas is coming, get ready.

 

I know, I started bringing Tums with me to the games about 10 years ago.  I don't know if it was the hot dogs or the beer or Joe Mays but I wasn't able to stop the late inning gas anymore.  So I started eating Tums and some Kaopectate, and it got better.  Ha ha

[Twodogs]

Closer by committee that worked out very well that I can remember was the Nasty Boys in Cinncinati.

[zchrz]

Dominate bullpens in the modern game are a major advantage.  You can more supplement a less dominate starting staff with a dominate bullpen.  Closers are overpaid and overated somewhat but bullpen aces are not.  You want your best reliever to pitch as many high importance innings as possible, if there are good hitters in the 9th that is often the moment, but if its facing the 3-4-5 hitters in the 8th or getting the crucial out in the 7th that is the optimal time weather a save is available or not. If there are 2 or 3 shut down guys 1/3 of the game is near gone no matter what order you put them in.

[Thegrin]

Throwing gas is not the key to a closer. The ability to focus and perform when under pressure is the key.  Look at all the relievers with good stuff when they start an inning, that blow up with men on base.  I think we should relax until we have 3 or more superior relievers, before we worry about bullpen by committee

[old nurse]

Players seem to prefer to havedefined roles. Closer, set up, 7th inning. That is why Perkins gets mentally ready for any 9th inning that matters in a Twins game. I would have imagined Swarzak was gettting ready to go anytime a couple of the pitchers no longer with the team started. Not everybody is wired to ake an undefined riole. Maybe it is easier for Fein to pitch to the 4-5-6 hitters in the 8th inning than the 7-9 hitters in the 9th.

 

Through the years there have been few people that I know could work with undefined roles. There have been attempts to try closer or bullpen by committee yet few last the season.

Edited January 5, 2015 by old nurse

[Lakeside]

Baseball roles continue to evolve.  It appears from some of the transactions we have seen this winter that the Royals trio of 7-8-9 inning stoppers is influencing MLB this winter.

 

In the Twins case I'm guessing that they are looking into something like that with Stauffer, Fien, and Perkins.   Obviously, on paper, not as strong as the KC trio was last year, but the important thing is that it appears they are moving to that system.

 

Meyer could be your 7th or 8th inning guy this year instead of Stauffer or Fien.

 

It also appears to me with the stockpile of quality relievers in the minor leagues that the Twins have the "potential" to have a dominant 7-8-9 releiver role for some years to come.  Although, I am like Jim Pohlad in that "potential" is only that until proven on the MLB level.

 

No doubt, however, you will see more teams going to a defined role for the 7-8-9 innings when they have a lead.  It's a long way from when Bert Blyleven was throwing 300 innings as a starter. . .as I say, baseball roles continue to evolve which makes it such a fascinating game.

[HitInAPinch]

in 2016?

 

I'm already way past Perkins as the closer,  I think we'd be lucky if Perkins was pitching in the 7th inning regulary in 2016.

I've said it before and I'll say it again:  trade Perkins NOW.  When your team has lost 90 games in 4 seasons, a guy with 30 saves is an expensive, unnecessary luxury.  At 32 yrs old in March, now is the time to trade him for a high-end minor leaguer or 2 and maybe some lower level prospects.  Or 2.

[Seth Stohs]

The big take-away from this article is that the Twins have clearly noticed the trend toward more hard-throwers, hoping they can become hard-throwing pitchers. There are some serious arms down in the minor leagues.

 

The other point brought up in the comments, however, is to remember that it isn't just about velocity. Even guys that throw 100 need a little movement and at least a second pitch. Eddie Guardado didn't throw very hard and yet he was very good as a closer. Luke Gregerson rarely hits 90 and he got huge money because he has been successful for a long time. There are certainly examples to all of this. 

 

That said, velocity allows for greater margin of error and it certainly can be intimidating. Let's hope these guys continue to develop and find themselves dominating out of the Twins bullpen for years!

[HitInAPinch]

Throwing gas is not the key to a closer. The ability to focus and perform when under pressure is the key.  Look at all the relievers with good stuff when they start an inning, that blow up with men on base.  I think we should relax until we have 3 or more superior relievers, before we worry about bullpen by committee

And how about all the soft-tossers that were successful as closers?  Todd Jones it the first I could think of.  Who was the closer for the Orioles that Earl Weaver referred to as his 'six pack'?  As in Earl got so nervous when he was pitching that he burned through a six pack of cigarettes.  

[Dantes929]

 

 

No doubt, however, you will see more teams going to a defined role for the 7-8-9 innings when they have a lead.  It's a long way from when Bert Blyleven was throwing 300 innings as a starter. . .as I say, baseball roles continue to evolve which makes it such a fascinating game.

Very true in all you say which is why I say there is no way Blyleven would have made the HOF in today's game.    Its evolving but it is also reactionary.    Someone has success limiting starters to 100 pitches per start and soon everyone does it.   If someone had success stretching relievers out to two innings everyone would do it.  If someone had a gas thrower for the 7th and then a soft tosser in the 8th followed by gas in the 9th teams would start looking for a good soft tosser for their setup guy.     Yes, the argument for defined role for relievers is that most top bullpens are built that way.   Of course most of the worst bullpens are built that way also.    Makes baseball fascinating but also frustrating.    Every time a game is lost in the 8th because a team didn't have their best pitcher facing 2,3, and 4 guys can be countered with the times the top guy does pitch the high intensity 8th inning only for the game to be lost in the 9th.      Its the same thing with every manager pulling a starter only to have the reliever blow it vs the times the manager leaves the starter in only to have the starter blow it.   Only answers are in alternate universes.

[hybridbear]

Sounds like a great idea!!

[Willihammer]

Its so annoying. Does anyone trust Glen Perkins or Fien anymore? Both seemed pretty wasted at the end of the season if you ask me, and the Twins didn't even give them that many hold and save opportunities! What if they have more leads next year! They will have to change things up.

 

Its not just a Gardy quirk that Molitor is automatically going to change either. Everyone does it, there is money tied into the "save" and "hold" stats and probably a clubhouse chemistry aspect too. But IMO managers should pay more atttention to leverage, matchups, and regulating the workload of guys evenly over the season, and pay less attention to the "hold" or "save" stats which probably don't help with the longevity of a bullpen down the stretch, especially if your team is any good.

Edited January 5, 2015 by Willihammer

[Kwak]

Basically you answered your own question--RPs gravitate toward the "closer" role due to the substantial pay raise and status associated.  A RP can be elected to the HOF because of a huge number of "saves", but never a "set-up" guy.  A team might be fortunate enough to have three RPs as skilled as CINN's "Nasty Boys"--but they wouldn't be able to keep them very long before some would leave in free-agency to be the closer for another team--with the benefits the come withe role.  Then there's the management angle--keep things simple and do what others have proven successful--even if it isn't successful for your team.

[Willihammer]

Setup men are definitely in the same conversation. See Andrew Miller and his 4/36 contract without a single save last year.

 

edit: setup men aren't yet in the HoF conversation but they're in the money / status conversation for sure.

Edited January 5, 2015 by Willihammer

[TheLeviathan]

Setup men are definitely in the same conversation. See Andrew Miller and his 4/36 contract without a single save last year.

 

I'd suggest this is a very new phenomenon.  His deal doesn't have a lot of precedent.

[Rosterman]

The closer is a guy who trusts his stuff, can throw heat, and nowadays might be called upon to pitch 3-4 consecutive days before getting a night off. Doesn't happen much, but can,,,except that a team seldom sweeps series.

 

Perkins is the closer in 2015. He will probably be a closer in 2016. At that point, he might still have tradable worth, or figures he doesn't want to go anywhere and stay with the Twins and become a lefty specialist for the rest of his career, which could be long because he IS a lefty.

 

I agree that the concept of having at least two guys who can close causes a bit if a disarray with the other team. Moreso if you add that third set-up guy, preferably a lefty, and if you are comfortable NOT having your closer pitch a full inning. Seems closers do better if they start the ninth, let's say, then come in and have to get out a batter or two with the bases loaded. Of course, what UI jsut said is hogwash, as a closer has the heat and will challenge.

 

Ultimately, the worth of a closer all depends on the portion of the batting order or bench they are facing. If it is the bottom of the order, you sit back. If it is the heart of the order, you worry and hope you have another guy or two to get you out of trouble if the closer is holding a single run lead. And most teams don't have benches to fear anymore (look at the Twins - Pinto, Schaefer, Escobar and Parmelee, for example).

 

The Twins if they work it right, can have some closer creations that could be potential tradebait. Before last season, they should've heavily marketed Jared Burton. They didn't. Last season, Casey Fein was a marketable guy mid-season to a team looking for a temporary closing chip...maybe. By season's end, he lost that...and why they let Burton save in September instead of Fein or anyone else is beyond me (like the choice to start Swarzak - destroying his value - and if you had the slightest hint of not giving him a contract, give those innings to someone, anyone, who will be on the 40-man come spring).

 

Of course, ALL the hard-throwing names look great on paper. We only have to remember Anthony Slama to get the butt kick that what looks good in the minors may not be the choice of the majors. 

 

But if you want to add 2, or three, arms from the system each year...the Twins look great for 2015-16-17, considering that we still have the likes of Tonkin and Achter and Wheeler for 2015.

[Willihammer]

I'd suggest this is a very new phenomenon.  His deal doesn't have a lot of precedent.

Its the biggest deal for a setup guy, but there's precedent. Crain setup Nathan for a couple years before signging a 3 year deal with the Whities. Benoit signed a big 3 year deal that same offseason IIRC.

 

The point is unchanged. Using relievers based on performance and leverage, and rest, makes more sense, at least on paper, than giving them titles and reserving super specific jobs for them.

[Brock Beauchamp]

Somebody has to say it for all the BYTOers out there.

 

GHEEEEET REEEEEADDDDHHHYYY

[brvama]

IMHO closer by committee creates uncertainy and chaos. Who pitches today? How do I prepare? When can I get back otut there to blot out last nites bad inning? Etc.

 

For it to work you need very unique individuals that are interchangeable with the ability to share the spotlight. Hard for athletes, most of whom have a healthy ego.

 

Having defined roles help quantify one's job and the preparation to excell at it. It provides continuity to the team and management. It also eliminates some of the back door politicking or maneuvering that sometimes happen, which keeps morale stronger.

 

Regarding the prospects coming up - how many will make and how many will be successful? And as someone has mentioned, maintaining that group could prove difficult.

 

Having a pen with good RPs is more important then just heat, they need to be consistently effective. But, It's also good to have a second choice available for closer or setup. This would help in case of injury OR if the manager decided to use the closer early on occasion.

 

Finally, let's face it, all are not created with equal abilities or mindset.

[Sam Morley]

Lots of strong comments here, including plenty of cautioning at over-valuing heat, and counting chickens before they hatch. All fair. I have to say that I don't typically take much interest in pitching, far less even in relief pitching. I'd much prefer to talk about position players. My typical thoughts on the pitching staff would be: focus on the starters, and see who steps up in relief- if a closer turns up, hang onto him. It seems like you can always convert somebody when you need to.

 

But reading the prospect lists, from in-house to MLB.com, to Kiley McDaniel at fangraphs, they are full of college closers that crank it in the high 90s to trip digits. And from what I have read, many are not just throwers, but have a fair amount of polish. Plenty have said that Nick Burdi is MLB ready now. It seems, like these guys are the Sanos and Buxtons of relievers. I'm not one to pencil in future line-ups before guys arrive, but you can bet I'm still giddy excited about Sano and Buxton. At first, when I saw the Twins drafting all these relievers, I was a little annoyed. I was thinking, hey the rotation is a disgrace, and relievers are a dime a dozen. But maybe they've got an idea. And between an idea and 100mph, I can get excited about relief pitchers. Have the Twins ever had one guy that closed in on one hundo? C'mon, fellas!

[Dantes929]

IMHO closer by committee creates uncertainy and chaos. Who pitches today? How do I prepare? When can I get back otut there to blot out last nites bad inning? Etc.

 

For it to work you need very unique individuals that are interchangeable with the ability to share the spotlight. Hard for athletes, most of whom have a healthy ego.

 

Having defined roles help quantify one's job and the preparation to excell at it. It provides continuity to the team and management. It also eliminates some of the back door politicking or maneuvering that sometimes happen, which keeps morale stronger.

 

Regarding the prospects coming up - how many will make and how many will be successful? And as someone has mentioned, maintaining that group could prove difficult.

 

Having a pen with good RPs is more important then just heat, they need to be consistently effective. But, It's also good to have a second choice available for closer or setup. This would help in case of injury OR if the manager decided to use the closer early on occasion.

 

Finally, let's face it, all are not created with equal abilities or mindset.

Responding to your post from bottom up without really disagreeing with too much of it.  Mindset is certainly an evolving thing.   I have seen Joe Nathan looking scared in New York and invisible elsewhere and who knows maybe on a different day he would have looked better in New York as well. Crain looked great for 20 appearances in a row and then just lost it.   Likewise with Perkins last year.   Baseball is lends itself to chaos.  Extra innngs, maybe several days in a row of 1 run leads going into the 7th and then several days in a row of behind by 1 in the 7th creates chaos especially when using 5 or 6 pitchers per game.. I don't think any system eliminates back door politicking if that is  the makeup of the individuals.    Having defined roles can be helpful but the definition doesn't have to be the traditional or the currently popular.    No one is suggesting that Perkins close a game today and then pitch long relief in two days but facing two tough lefties in the 8th might make more sense than waiting to face bottom of the order righties in the 9th and that kind of scenario can be defined ahead of time.   He doesn't have to be the closer.   I would also like to see guys stretched out more.   If a guy is "on" in the 7th why not throw him out there in the 8th instead of a guy that might be off?    In the long term it would likely save the pen for guys to throw 80 innings in 40 appearances rather than 70 innings in 70 appearances but there again I have no proof that that can be a blanket statement for everyone.   Not every pitcher or team have the same abilities and mindsets so maybe the formulas and role definitions should not be the same for everyone.

[Otto von Ballpark]

Of course, ALL the hard-throwing names look great on paper. We only have to remember Anthony Slama to get the butt kick that what looks good in the minors may not be the choice of the majors. 

I too think this article is a bit premature, but to be fair, Slama wasn't really a hard thrower -- he racked up minor league strikeouts by other means.

 

Billy Bullock might be a better cautionary tale from recent Twins memory.  Or Jim Hoey, Lester Oliveros, Stephen Pryor, etc.  Some of the current guys may be better bets, but I'm not going to expect an embarrassment of riches in this department until we see a few of these guys healthy and still dominating above A-ball.

[shs_59]

2 words to remember though

 

Billy Bullock

 

also Jose Mijares

 

also Anthony Slama and Rob Delaney

 

also what Ever happened to Luke Bard?

 

I really really really hope J.T. 95-97 MPH throwing Chargois pans out.

[shs_59]

Brandon Peterson, Cam Booser and Adrian Salcedo are good underratted guys that could end up pitching in 7th inning mlb leverage situations.

 

Brandon Paulson is a great story, but i'm not expecting anything from him really.

[TheLeviathan]

Its the biggest deal for a setup guy, but there's precedent. Crain setup Nathan for a couple years before signging a 3 year deal with the Whities. Benoit signed a big 3 year deal that same offseason IIRC.

 

The point is unchanged. Using relievers based on performance and leverage, and rest, makes more sense, at least on paper, than giving them titles and reserving super specific jobs for them.

 

Crain got 3 years and 13M, that is a far cry from 4/36.  I just wouldn't use 4/36 as a good example.

 

I've always been torn on this subject.  In theory I agree with the idea of not limiting yourself by the roles you assign to players.  At the same time, I also know as a human being that I like having some routine and my job to contain relatively predictable situations and circumstances.  (And that this helps me do my job)

 

I think this may be one of those times where theory doesn't work when the rubber hits the road, no matter how well-intentioned and argued the theory is.

[Dantes929]

  

But reading the prospect lists, from in-house to MLB.com, to Kiley McDaniel at fangraphs, they are full of college closers that crank it in the high 90s to trip digits. And from what I have read, many are not just throwers, but have a fair amount of polish. Plenty have said that Nick Burdi is MLB ready now. It seems, like these guys are the Sanos and Buxtons of relievers. I'm not one to pencil in future line-ups before guys arrive, but you can bet I'm still giddy excited about Sano and Buxton. At first, when I saw the Twins drafting all these relievers, I was a little annoyed. I was thinking, hey the rotation is a disgrace, and relievers are a dime a dozen. But maybe they've got an idea. And between an idea and 100mph, I can get excited about relief pitchers. Have the Twins ever had one guy that closed in on one hundo? C'mon, fellas!

Not 100 mph but I get more excited when I hear about nasty stuff than just pure heat.    In the early to mid 2000 decade we had Romero, Rincon, Santana, Hawkins, Guardado, Crain, Guerrier and Nathan which was pretty exciting and if you look at some of their ERA's in that time you will understand why.   I remember in that time period Konerko getting mad at the White Sox for their lack of urgency in early innings because the Twins were lights out in the later innings and that the bullpen was the difference between the two teams.    High velocity can reduce the margin of error but not if you can't control it and not if you don't have a quality secondary or third pitch.    Like I said 100mph doesn't excite me.   Give me a guy with great control, a good fastball, a knee bending curveball or changeup  and a nasty slider.    If the fastball is 100 mph then all the better but not mandatory.  Runs allowed is still the yardstick.

[Brock Beauchamp]

Crain got 3 years and 13M, that is a far cry from 4/36.  I just wouldn't use 4/36 as a good example.

 

I've always been torn on this subject.  In theory I agree with the idea of not limiting yourself by the roles you assign to players.  At the same time, I also know as a human being that I like having some routine and my job to contain relatively predictable situations and circumstances.  (And that this helps me do my job)

 

I think this may be one of those times where theory doesn't work when the rubber hits the road, no matter how well-intentioned and argued the theory is.

I agree on all points.

 

But I'd like to see someone give the Bullpen Ace theory a legitimate shot over a couple of seasons to see if it works. Nobody had a one-inning "closer" before Dennis Eckersley... All it takes is one team to think outside conventional wisdom and test the theory. The other teams will mimic the idea if it's a success.

[brvama]

Responding to your post from bottom up without really disagreeing with too much of it.  Mindset is certainly an evolving thing.   I have seen Joe Nathan looking scared in New York and invisible elsewhere and who knows maybe on a different day he would have looked better in New York as well. Crain looked great for 20 appearances in a row and then just lost it.   Likewise with Perkins last year.   Baseball is lends itself to chaos.  Extra innngs, maybe several days in a row of 1 run leads going into the 7th and then several days in a row of behind by 1 in the 7th creates chaos especially when using 5 or 6 pitchers per game.. I don't think any system eliminates back door politicking if that is  the makeup of the individuals.    Having defined roles can be helpful but the definition doesn't have to be the traditional or the currently popular.    No one is suggesting that Perkins close a game today and then pitch long relief in two days but facing two tough lefties in the 8th might make more sense than waiting to face bottom of the order righties in the 9th and that kind of scenario can be defined ahead of time.   He doesn't have to be the closer.   I would also like to see guys stretched out more.   If a guy is "on" in the 7th why not throw him out there in the 8th instead of a guy that might be off?    In the long term it would likely save the pen for guys to throw 80 innings in 40 appearances rather than 70 innings in 70 appearances but there again I have no proof that that can be a blanket statement for everyone.   Not every pitcher or team have the same abilities and mindsets so maybe the formulas and role definitions should not be the same for everyone.

 

Dante, pretty much agree. I think the point is that the construction of the pen AND how it is used really depends on those that are filling it. There is no right or wrong way, IMO.

 

I also would like to have the quality to run a RP out for more than an inning. Maybe that is so old school. I remember that use to be the norm.