Your Opinion: Long Reliever

[CBeisbol]

I have 5 starters (4 right-handed 1 left-handed) that I expect to be solid and provide a lot of innings. But, I still like to keep a long reliever to keep from burning the bullpen out on those games when the starter doesn't last a long time. This reliever would also be likely to make any starts when any of my other starters are injured.

My stadium suppresses offense - both average and home runs. My defense should be above average both in the infield and outfield. The infield is probably a bit better.


I'm considering 4 options which will be listed by number below

#11. My most promising starting pitching prospect. He was ok in AAA last year with 2.1 WAR in 166 innings. 101 FIP- and 116 ERA+. He's not currently on the 40 man roster

#17. Was acquired last year to provide ML ready starting pitching depth. Ended up with 112 ML innings of 116 FIP- and 73 ERA+ performance starting and relieving. He started off well and his performance (and ratings) declined as the season went on. He is on the 40 man roster and has 1 year and 49 days of ML service and 2 options remaining.

#56. My second best starting pitching prospect. Came a bit out of nowhere last year to post 2.0 AAA WAR in 135 innings and also had 28 ML innings with a 130 FIP- and 109 ERA+. Has 39 ML service days and 3 options remaining.

#59. Acquired this off season to provide left-handed starting pitching depth. Had 1.9 WAR in 88 AAA innings but -0.8 WAR in 60 ML innings with a 151 FIP- and 59 ERA+. Has spent 94 days in the majors and has all 3 options years left.


My thoughts
#11. I like to break my young starters in rather than just throwing them into the rotation. Especially when I expect my team to contend. But, I don't know that he would get sufficient innings behind this rotation to further his development so I might prefer him to make regular starts in AAA.

#17. Has the most major league experience and has had some success. But, he has declined in ratings and performance. I had expected him to take a rotation spot this season, but he played himself out of that spot. A year in the bullpen might be the best use of his talent. Despite being a side-armer, he hasn't shown big platoon in his results nor in his ratings.

#56. Similar to #11, I'd like him to get more ML innings before anointing him a starter. He looks more like a 3/4 in the rotation and, being older and closer to his peak, there's less concern about stunting his development by having him in the ML bullpen instead of the AAA rotation.

#59. The only lefty of the group. With 4 right-handed starters, that plays into it. I have what I expect to be 3 very good right-handed relievers and 2 more mediocre left-handed relievers in my bullpen. So, a right-handed starter, replaced by a left-handed long reliever and then right and left handed relievers as needed should keep me with the platoon advantage in most cases.


None of the pitchers have any significant advantages with defense or hitting. Nor are benefits or drawbacks with their personalities.

[Timofmars]

First, I don't agree with some of the assumptions you made.

I thought that players on the ML active roster develop the same regardless of playing time. At least the manual says they develop "normally" in the ML or reserve roster, but can develop slower in the minors if they get little playing time. Though I don't know if that means a minor league player can develop faster than a ML player if they were to play as much as possible, or if just a moderate amount of playing time in the minors is as good as a lot of playing time, etc.

I also don't believe there is any in-game mechanism regarding easing players into the rotation, so I don't make that a consideration.

With that said, I tend to try to delay using top prospects in the ML as long as possible while they are still developing, in order to get the maximum performance from them for minimal salary costs. Giving them a ML spot earlier in development means that they won't be as good for those early years, but then by the time arbitration comes, they are still asking for the full amount that reflects their current ability, regardless of whether the have recently reach that level of ability or have been there for 3 years. Though I will play a prospect in September if he's on the 40 man, to help his development after minor league games are finished.

And I especially delay adding a prospect to the 40 man unless I need to for rule 5 protection. So I wouldn't use #11 since he still has a ways to go to reach his potential. Also, his lower stamina maybe wouldn't allow him to eat up as many innings as your other choices.

#17 and #59 have lower potential, so are more replaceable. Or if you keep them long term, their eventual salary demands shouldn't be a big change in your budget. So I'd have no problem using them in the ML as needed. #59 may perform better than usual because of the platoon difference.

#56 appears to the best pitcher of the 3 older ones, but I think his extra skill is unimportant for a long reliever, as they will be more often used in blowouts when the outcome of the game is mostly already decided. If he is a 3/4 in the rotation, I would just put him there now.

If he is just used as long reliever, I'd go one of the other 2 instead. Maybe if your own of your starters gets injured, then bring him in to fill the spot.

[mytreds]

Do you sim your games or do you play them out?

[CBeisbol]

Originally Posted by mytreds

Do you sim your games or do you play them out?

Sim the vast majority

[mytreds]

If you have a prospect that you know will be a solid starter, then I wouldn’t put him in relief. I’d start him right in the rotation when there’s an injury or the start of a fresh season when another starter leaves the club. Long relievers can usually be guys who were projected as starters but didn’t develop the stuff to go 5+ innings every 5 days. I’d say either 17 or 59 would be good for the role. But then again you and I don’t see eye to eye always, so you can take my 2 cents with a dose of salt.

[CBeisbol]

Originally Posted by mytreds

If you have a prospect that you know will be a solid starter, then I wouldn’t put him in relief. I’d start him right in the rotation when there’s an injury or the start of a fresh season when another starter leaves the club. Long relievers can usually be guys who were projected as starters but didn’t develop the stuff to go 5+ innings every 5 days. I’d say either 17 or 59 would be good for the role. But then again you and I don’t see eye to eye always, so you can take my 2 cents with a dose of salt.

I take everyone's opinion with a dose of salt.

Thanks for your input.

[r0nster]

i love long relievers/ emergancy starters. They are handy in a pinch especially when we often get the starter gets injured one out into game. At least it happens alot for me

[CBeisbol]

Spring training results

Small sample, of course

#56 and #59 were obviously dominant.
#11 and #17 had big issues with control.

[lencombs]

I'd go with the young guy with higher Stuff rating if trying to contend right now. All 4 have control rating of 4 or 5 but #11 has much better Stuff and will mean more K/9. Unless you really need another Lefty out of the pen.