08/16/2026 1:40p EDT Chicago White Sox vs Detroit Tigers

[chasfh]

13 hours ago, monkeytargets39 said:

Would adding 1-2 relievers at the deadline have made a difference when we can’t really truly rely on any of them to be shutdown relievers?  Holton and Waguespack have been the most consistent and even they are more pitch to contact types than guys who overpower you.  We aren’t going to get to the next level until we have 3-4 guys who can come in and be consistently dominant as opposed to roulette wheel spins on what we are going to get.

I don’t know whether we need that many, because I don’t know anyone has who has that many. Although I do agree that we could definitely benefit from having at least two: a guy who can shut down other teams in the eighth inning, and another guy who can do that in the ninth.

To develop a proxy measure for guys who can “come in and be consistently dominant”, which I interpret to mean overpowering, I took a look at how many teams have had multiple guys who both (1) strike out batters at clip at least 5 points higher than league average of ~22%; and (2) walk rate of no higher than league average of ~9%. Minimum of 10 IP.

Answer: eight teams have two or more of these guys: 

|Team   |Qualifying relievers (K% / BB%)                                              |
|-------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|CHC (3)|Tyler Ferguson 28.6%/2.9%, Caleb Thielbar 28.0%/8.3%, Jacob Webb 27.4%/7.6%  |
|MIA (3)|Anthony Bender 29.3%/8.6%, Tyler Zuber 28.0%/4.0%, William Kempner 28.0%/8.0%|
|ARI (2)|Brandyn Garcia 30.0%/5.4%, Juan Morillo 29.3%/8.6%                           |
|BOS (2)|Garrett Whitlock 29.2%/4.2%, Justin Slaten 28.5%/5.8%                        |
|NYY (2)|Brent Headrick 30.3%/7.5%, David Bednar 28.0%/7.9%                           |
|PHI (2)|Jhoan Duran 35.3%/4.2%, Jonathan Bowlan 31.0%/5.9%                           |
|TBR (2)|Cam Booser 33.7%/4.8%, Bryan Baker 29.0%/8.7%                                |
|WSN (2)|Trevor Williams 29.8%/4.3%, Will Dion 29.7%/4.5%                             |

You can see who’s missing from the list above: Braves, Brewers, Astros, Padres, and … drum roll, please … the spendingest team in baseball history, the Dodgers. Most of them do have one:

|Team|Pitcher       |K%   |BB% |
|----|--------------|-----|----|
|ATL |Dylan Lee     |33.2%|6.3%|
|CLE |Cade Smith    |34.2%|8.0%|
|KCR |Jose Cuas     |27.7%|8.5%|
|LAD |Tanner Scott  |33.0%|5.9%|
|MIL |Trevor Megill |29.0%|6.5%|
|SDP |Adrian Morejon|29.9%|6.7%|
|TOR |Louie Varland |31.7%|6.8%|

And these 15 teams have none: ATH, BAL, CHW, CIN, COL, DET, HOU, LAA, MIN, NYM, PIT, SEA, SFG, STL, TEX.

The conclusion I come to is, it’s really hard to get multiple shutdown relievers on your staff all at the same time, and if you have as many as three, you’re in rarified air. But it would be nice if the Tigers could get at least one, since most of the teams who have that are contenders, and most of the teams who don’t are not.

 

Edited Monday at 12:50 PM by chasfh

[monkeytargets39]

4 minutes ago, chasfh said:

I don’t know whether we need that many, because I don’t know anyone has who has that many. but I agree that we could definitely benefit from having at least two: a guy who can shut down other teams in the eighth inning, and another guy who can do that in the ninth.

To develop a proxy measure for guys who can “come in and be consistently dominant”, which I interpret to mean overpowering, I took a look at how many teams have had multiple guys who both (1) strike out batters at clip at least 5 points higher than league average of ~22%; and (2) walk rate of no higher than league average of ~9%.

Answer: eight teams have two or more of these guys: 

|Team   |Qualifying relievers (K% / BB%)                                              |
|-------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|CHC (3)|Tyler Ferguson 28.6%/2.9%, Caleb Thielbar 28.0%/8.3%, Jacob Webb 27.4%/7.6%  |
|MIA (3)|Anthony Bender 29.3%/8.6%, Tyler Zuber 28.0%/4.0%, William Kempner 28.0%/8.0%|
|ARI (2)|Brandyn Garcia 30.0%/5.4%, Juan Morillo 29.3%/8.6%                           |
|BOS (2)|Garrett Whitlock 29.2%/4.2%, Justin Slaten 28.5%/5.8%                        |
|NYY (2)|Brent Headrick 30.3%/7.5%, David Bednar 28.0%/7.9%                           |
|PHI (2)|Jhoan Duran 35.3%/4.2%, Jonathan Bowlan 31.0%/5.9%                           |
|TBR (2)|Cam Booser 33.7%/4.8%, Bryan Baker 29.0%/8.7%                                |
|WSN (2)|Trevor Williams 29.8%/4.3%, Will Dion 29.7%/4.5%                             |

You can see who’s missing from the list above: Braves, Brewers, Astros, Padres, and … drum roll, please … the spendingest team in baseball history, the Dodgers. Most of them do have one:

|Team|Pitcher       |K%   |BB% |
|----|--------------|-----|----|
|ATL |Dylan Lee     |33.2%|6.3%|
|CLE |Cade Smith    |34.2%|8.0%|
|KCR |Jose Cuas     |27.7%|8.5%|
|LAD |Tanner Scott  |33.0%|5.9%|
|MIL |Trevor Megill |29.0%|6.5%|
|SDP |Adrian Morejon|29.9%|6.7%|
|TOR |Louie Varland |31.7%|6.8%|

And these 15 teams have none: ATH, BAL, CHW, CIN, COL, DET, HOU, LAA, MIN, NYM, PIT, SEA, SFG, STL, TEX.

The conclusion I come to is, it’s really hard to get multiple shutdown relievers on your staff all at the same time, and if you have as many as three, you’re in rarified air. But it would be nice if the Tigers could get at least one.

 

Yeah that’s interesting.  The other problem is how volatile that is year to year.  I bet most people would only have named maybe 4 or 5 of the guys you listed above prior to this season starting as top shelf relievers.

At the same time—almost all of the teams you listed are solidly in the playoff discussion—so that shows you the value of having them correlating to success as a team.  

That’s why I think if you’re Harris and Co., you identify some minor league guys who have maybe 2 plus potential pitches and you convert them to relief early rather than waiting for them to flame out as starters first.  Build a bench of guys with relief and leverage experience in the minors to draw from rather than hoping that a guy like Ty Madden or Drew Anderson will be an effective reliever despite being a starter their entire baseball career.  Then if they get to the big leagues and are effective, take care of them financially to justify the career trajectory change.  Gotta start thinking a bit differently than other teams if you want to find ways to get advantages without spending 7 figures on washed up arms.

[Tiger337]

4 minutes ago, monkeytargets39 said:

Yeah that’s interesting.  The other problem is how volatile that is year to year.  I bet most people would only have named maybe 4 or 5 of the guys you listed above prior to this season starting as top shelf relievers.

At the same time—almost all of the teams you listed are solidly in the playoff discussion—so that shows you the value of having them correlating to success as a team.  

That’s why I think if you’re Harris and Co., you identify some minor league guys who have maybe 2 plus potential pitches and you convert them to relief early rather than waiting for them to flame out as starters first.  Build a bench of guys with relief and leverage experience in the minors to draw from rather than hoping that a guy like Ty Madden or Drew Anderson will be an effective reliever despite being a starter their entire baseball career.  Then if they get to the big leagues and are effective, take care of them financially to justify the career trajectory change.  Gotta start thinking a bit differently than other teams if you want to find ways to get advantages without spending 7 figures on washed up arms.

I could be wrong, but I am not sure leverage experience in the minors translates into leverage success in the majors.  Physically, you want guys that get a lot of strikeouts with a minimum of walks which I think can come from any role.  And I think any mental aspect of leverage relieving is going to to so much more intense in a major league environment that it can only be learned in the majors.  

[chasfh]

I would think that pitchers with two or more plus pitches would be considered more valuable to teams as starters than relievers, especially if they have more than two. And particularly if they have the stamina to be starters. I think those guys just might be too rare to have the luxury of repurposing them to become bullpen pieces to suit this particular team this particular year.

But even past performance as a shutdown guy is no guarantee of future performance as a shutdown guy. Notice how Houston has no one who qualifies above as shutdown this year? They do have three guys in their pen who qualified last year: Steven Okert, Bennett Sousa, and Josh Hader. This year, though, Sousa's K rate has collapsed and BB rate has ballooned; and while Okert has kept his walk rate in check, his K rate is also way down. Only Hader is close, although both his K rate and BB rate are worse this year than last.

This is an imprecise science, this bullpen building. That said, it is fairly an Achilles heel in Harris's armor to date, and I can only assume he has initially prioritized other aspects of getting the franchise on its track toward perennial contending—such as drafting, development, infrastructure upgrades, etc.—over spending time, treasure, and limited attention capital to getting a shutdown bullpen in place right now. I'm guessing that's a within-the-next-couple-of-seasons thing. I'm not saying this because this is what I want—it's just what I am hypothesizing is happening.

[monkeytargets39]

1 hour ago, Tiger337 said:

I could be wrong, but I am not sure leverage experience in the minors translates into leverage success in the majors.  Physically, you want guys that get a lot of strikeouts with a minimum of walks which I think can come from any role.  And I think any mental aspect of leverage relieving is going to to so much more intense in a major league environment that it can only be learned in the majors.  

You’re probably right about that.  I would think that there’s something to the idea of developing a warm-up/mental preparation routine for late inning work that could help though.  Things like blowing a save and being able to move on and come back strong the next game, or pitching with the knowledge that it’s your game to finish and there’s no safety net behind you.  Harness the adrenaline instead of letting it affect your ability to make your pitches.  There’s definitely guys that excel in the role and guys that can’t handle it.
 

Otherwise I would assume it’s 95+% just about the pitchers actual physical pitching ability.

[monkeytargets39]

And I don’t think he can do anything about getting a shutdown reliever for this team this year aside from any individual reliever we already have suddenly clicking into it.

 

Im definitely referring to how to build future bullpens.  Going out and getting free agent relievers clearly seems to have a much lower success rate than most other positional acquisitions—and not just for Harris but for all GMs.  I think the astute move is to identify guys in minor league systems that have identifiable traits as possible plus relievers and targeting them in minor-league trades/international signings.  

Build up the cabinet of guys you want to blossom into these roles internally instead of hoping you find gold in free agency or off of the waiver wire.  Find those pitchers who maybe don’t project as front line starters but who still project as major league potential arms and start focusing all of their development on specific things that top relievers do (K-rate and strike throwing, having one devastating out pitch, eliminating the run game, not walking leadoff guys, higher ground ball rates, etc.)

Edited Monday at 03:01 PM by monkeytargets39

[SoCalTiger]

3 hours ago, Shelton said:

I don’t think the ability to re-sign a player once they enter free agency is much of a factor at all for modern front offices. So I agree that the decision to trade Mize had little to do with their ability to do so. 
 

I think it was just a standard value proposition. To the extent we might choose to reverse this trade today (maybe less so after the sweep, but in general when things looked even better on Friday morning) doesn’t really matter when considering the decision being made two weeks ago. 
 

I think in the case of Mize, they valued the prospect they got back substantially higher than the value of a comp pick in the next draft. 
 

And I think another big part of it is that the value of Casey Mize over two months relative to his replacement isn’t significant. 
 

I think the tigers are 3-3 in games started from the Skubal and Mize rotation spots since Skubal’s final start. 

And I think the padres and Dodgers are 1-5 in those started by Mize and Skubal or perhaps 2-4. Only one of which is the starters fault(Mize's first ). 

[Tiger337]

1 hour ago, chasfh said:

I would think that pitchers with two or more plus pitches would be considered more valuable to teams as starters than relievers, especially if they have more than two. And particularly if they have the stamina to be starters. I think those guys just might be too rare to have the luxury of repurposing them to become bullpen pieces to suit this particular team this particular year.

But even past performance as a shutdown guy is no guarantee of future performance as a shutdown guy. Notice how Houston has no one who qualifies above as shutdown this year? They do have three guys in their pen who qualified last year: Steven Okert, Bennett Sousa, and Josh Hader. This year, though, Sousa's K rate has collapsed and BB rate has ballooned; and while Okert has kept his walk rate in check, his K rate is also way down. Only Hader is close, although both his K rate and BB rate are worse this year than last.

This is an imprecise science, this bullpen building. That said, it is fairly an Achilles heel in Harris's armor to date, and I can only assume he has initially prioritized other aspects of getting the franchise on its track toward perennial contending—such as drafting, development, infrastructure upgrades, etc.—over spending time, treasure, and limited attention capital to getting a shutdown bullpen in place right now. I'm guessing that's a within-the-next-couple-of-seasons thing. I'm not saying this because this is what I want—it's just what I am hypothesizing is happening.

So, we have to wait two more seasons before we see a competent bullpen? 

I don't know.  Accumulating good young arms - both starters and relievers - through drafting and development should never be on the back burner.  The priority in the early rounds has been position players, but that doesn't mean they couldn't get some arms as well.  I think the middle and later rounds can produce some relievers  Injuries have not helped.   

[papalawrence]

Cubbies are going to sweep the CWS

[chasfh]

57 minutes ago, Tiger337 said:

So, we have to wait two more seasons before we see a competent bullpen? 

I don't know.  Accumulating good young arms - both starters and relievers - through drafting and development should never be on the back burner.  The priority in the early rounds has been position players, but that doesn't mean they couldn't get some arms as well.  I think the middle and later rounds can produce some relievers  Injuries have not helped.   

I don’t know, maybe? I’m just hypothesizing.

Besides, I myself wouldn’t conclude that a bullpen that is top third in many fielding-independent and run-prevention metrics and top half in others is not competent. YMMVOC. 

Edited Monday at 04:56 PM by chasfh

[Tiger337]

30 minutes ago, chasfh said:

I don’t know, maybe? I’m just hypothesizing.

Besides, I myself wouldn’t conclude that a bullpen that is top third in many fielding-independent and run-prevention metrics and top half in others is not competent. YMMVOC. 

I have rarely seen a bullpen that has blown so many games.  So, either it's a bad bullpen or it's not being managed properly or it's unlucky.  It could be partially luck, but they don't have one reliever who can be trusted in a high leverage spot.  And it's not necessarily a mental thing.  As a staff, they don't get a lot of strikeouts and are dependent on fielders to make plays, so they leave a lot to chance and these types of pitchers are not well suited to high leverage roles.  So, while they may be competent low-leverage pitchers, they may not be competent high leverage relievers.  That's my theory.  

[Sports_Freak]

3 hours ago, chasfh said:

I would think that pitchers with two or more plus pitches would be considered more valuable to teams as starters than relievers, especially if they have more than two. And particularly if they have the stamina to be starters. I think those guys just might be too rare to have the luxury of repurposing them to become bullpen pieces to suit this particular team this particular year.

But even past performance as a shutdown guy is no guarantee of future performance as a shutdown guy. Notice how Houston has no one who qualifies above as shutdown this year? They do have three guys in their pen who qualified last year: Steven Okert, Bennett Sousa, and Josh Hader. This year, though, Sousa's K rate has collapsed and BB rate has ballooned; and while Okert has kept his walk rate in check, his K rate is also way down. Only Hader is close, although both his K rate and BB rate are worse this year than last.

This is an imprecise science, this bullpen building. That said, it is fairly an Achilles heel in Harris's armor to date, and I can only assume he has initially prioritized other aspects of getting the franchise on its track toward perennial contending—such as drafting, development, infrastructure upgrades, etc.—over spending time, treasure, and limited attention capital to getting a shutdown bullpen in place right now. I'm guessing that's a within-the-next-couple-of-seasons thing. I'm not saying this because this is what I want—it's just what I am hypothesizing is happening.

So many of the games are decided by the bullpens because of starting pitchers inability to go much over 100 pitches. I said earlier in the season that the Tigers should start their bullpen for the first 3 innings. That way, when they give up runs, we would not only know how many runs we need but we would also have more time to score them. I stand by that idea...so tired of seeing the BP give up 7th and 8th inning runs....

[monkeytargets39]

1 hour ago, Tiger337 said:

I have rarely seen a bullpen that has blown so many games.  So, either it's a bad bullpen or it's not being managed properly or it's unlucky.  It could be partially luck, but they don't have one reliever who can be trusted in a high leverage spot.  And it's not necessarily a mental thing.  As a staff, they don't get a lot of strikeouts and are dependent on fielders to make plays, so they leave a lot to chance and these types of pitchers are not well suited to high leverage roles.  So, while they may be competent low-leverage pitchers, they may not be competent high leverage relievers.  That's my theory.  

You put what I was trying to communicate into words perfectly.  100% agree.

 

We need to figure out an internal way to develop high leverage relievers beyond just hoping a failed starter can transition into that.  It’s hard to blame AJ for how he has managed the pen when he’s trying to use a set of needle nose pliers as a wrench.

 

Although I think Jansen is still a competent high leverage reliever, he’s just too far past his prime to where he can’t do it physically anymore.  Everyone else in the pen falls into the other category, except possibly Madden.

Edited Monday at 06:55 PM by monkeytargets39

[NorthWoods]

If we only had Mickey Lolich.  No need for a bullpen.

 

 

😉

[monkeytargets39]

45 minutes ago, Sports_Freak said:

So many of the games are decided by the bullpens because of starting pitchers inability to go much over 100 pitches. I said earlier in the season that the Tigers should start their bullpen for the first 3 innings. That way, when they give up runs, we would not only know how many runs we need but we would also have more time to score them. I stand by that idea...so tired of seeing the BP give up 7th and 8th inning runs....

Only problem with that is what if the starter comes in for the 4th and can’t get past the 5th?  Now you’ve already burned the starter and probably two relievers and are going to need likely 2-3 more minimally to finish it.  How do you then turn around and expect another minimum of 3 innings from the pen the next day?

[chasfh]

1 hour ago, Tiger337 said:

I have rarely seen a bullpen that has blown so many games.  So, either it's a bad bullpen or it's not being managed properly or it's unlucky.  It could be partially luck, but they don't have one reliever who can be trusted in a high leverage spot.  And it's not necessarily a mental thing.  As a staff, they don't get a lot of strikeouts and are dependent on fielders to make plays, so they leave a lot to chance and these types of pitchers are not well suited to high leverage roles.  So, while they may be competent low-leverage pitchers, they may not be competent high leverage relievers.  That's my theory.  

I guess the question, then, is how can that be controlled and planned for? How can Harris separate reliever prospects for potential contracts into low-leverage and high-leverage buckets, before we actually throw them out there to find out? Also, Finnegan and Vest were very good in high leverage situations last year, but not this year. How can Harris determine which relievers who are good in high leverage situations one year will fall apart in high leverage situation the following year, before he signs them and we run them out there to find out? Which organizations are doing it consistently right and what can we learn from them?

[Tiger337]

18 minutes ago, chasfh said:

I guess the question, then, is how can that be controlled and planned for? How can Harris separate reliever prospects for potential contracts into low-leverage and high-leverage buckets, before we actually throw them out there to find out? Also, Finnegan and Vest were very good in high leverage situations last year, but not this year. How can Harris determine which relievers who are good in high leverage situations one year will fall apart in high leverage situation the following year, before he signs them and we run them out there to find out? Which organizations are doing it consistently right and what can we learn from them?

I think that's hard.  I think if you took a consensus ranking of bullpens at the beginning of a year, it would have a low correlation with actual results, more so than other parts of the game.  But, yes there are probably some teams that are a little better than others over the course of time and you could maybe learn something from that.  

[gehringer_2]

3 hours ago, monkeytargets39 said:

We need to figure out an internal way to develop high leverage relievers

the formula is not a mystery - you start with velo at about 97+ and not walking guys. maybe 98% of the issue with this year's BP is the walks. HR's have been a problem for Finnegan, but the impact there is exacerbated by walks also.

[Sports_Freak]

3 hours ago, monkeytargets39 said:

Only problem with that is what if the starter comes in for the 4th and can’t get past the 5th?  Now you’ve already burned the starter and probably two relievers and are going to need likely 2-3 more minimally to finish it.  How do you then turn around and expect another minimum of 3 innings from the pen the next day?

Same as if the starter can't make it past the 2nd inning. Same problem. Several BP arms needed.

[monkeytargets39]

6 minutes ago, Sports_Freak said:

Same as if the starter can't make it past the 2nd inning. Same problem. Several BP arms needed.

Yeah but in that scenario you haven’t already burned a couple of your options.

 

Likewise, would you bring your ace into a game in the 4th inning if the bullpen already gave up several runs early?  Or would you only bring them in if they had a lead or tie to protect?

Edited Monday at 10:51 PM by monkeytargets39

[Sports_Freak]

5 minutes ago, monkeytargets39 said:

Yeah but in that scenario you haven’t already burned a couple of your options.

 

Likewise, would you bring your ace into a game in the 4th inning if the bullpen already gave up several runs early?  Or would you only bring them in if they had a lead or tie to protect?

Yeah...but what has happened more this season? A SP getting knocked out in the 1st or 2nd or the BP blowing a lead late? Giving us no time to catch up?