Cincinnati Reds Bullpen 2023

[westofyou]

Reds BP

"Bobby, some things are like a tire fire, trying to put it out only makes it worse. You just gotta grab a beer and let it burn."

~ Hank Hill

[Kc61]

The Reds have convinced me that the rebuild is coming along fine with position players.

But they haven’t convinced me on pitching. Whether starters or relievers, they don’t have enough good pitchers and the pipeline is less compelling than on the position side.

In the current era, three good young starters and one promising reliever don’t begin to cover enough innings.

[NebraskaRed]

The Reds have convinced me that the rebuild is coming along fine with position players.

But they haven’t convinced me on pitching. Whether starters or relievers, they don’t have enough good pitchers and the pipeline is less compelling than on the position side.

In the current era, three good young starters and one promising reliever don’t begin to cover enough innings.

I can see what they're doing with starting pitchers, even if I agree that it's not enough.

As far as the bullpen goes...they do realize that they need one, right? I'm not sure they do.

[Kc61]

I can see what they're doing with starting pitchers, even if I agree that it's not enough.

As far as the bullpen goes...they do realize that they need one, right? I'm not sure they do.

Agree, but the staff as a whole is inadequate. The major league season requires about 1,400 innings of pitching per team. In the old days, you could get close to 1,000 from your starters and a couple primary relievers. This Reds team, being generous, can cover 525 innings from their three principal starters and Diaz.

This is a major reason why I can’t see them being any good. It’s rudimentary arithmetic. Innings coverage just isn’t there IMO.

Pitching and defense, fellas.

[JustTom]

Agree, but the staff as a whole is inadequate. The major league season requires about 1,400 innings of pitching per team. In the old days, you could get close to 1,000 from your starters and a couple primary relievers. This Reds team, being generous, can cover 525 innings from their three principal starters and Diaz.

This is a major reason why I can’t see them being any good. It’s rudimentary arithmetic. Innings coverage just isn’t there IMO.

Pitching and defense, fellas.

Or one Rob Murphy. He could probably still cover 150 himself.

[CaiGuy]

Agree, but the staff as a whole is inadequate. The major league season requires about 1,400 innings of pitching per team. In the old days, you could get close to 1,000 from your starters and a couple primary relievers. This Reds team, being generous, can cover 525 innings from their three principal starters and Diaz.

This is a major reason why I can’t see them being any good. It’s rudimentary arithmetic. Innings coverage just isn’t there IMO.

Pitching and defense, fellas.

Yep.

The offense should be able to hold it's own, but the pitching is a disaster.

After the first couple of key injuries, it will really come unraveled.

[757690]

The Reds have convinced me that the rebuild is coming along fine with position players.

But they haven’t convinced me on pitching. Whether starters or relievers, they don’t have enough good pitchers and the pipeline is less compelling than on the position side.

In the current era, three good young starters and one promising reliever don’t begin to cover enough innings.

I am not sure if you are talking about this year or the future. Concerning this year, absolutely the Reds don’t have enough pitching, not a secret or controversial opinion. Concerning the future, too early to tell.

Looking at the future, the Reds are ahead of where most if not all recent successful rebuilding teams have been in terms of pitching. I can’t think of any recent rebuilding team that had two potential aces, a solid #3 starter and a closer already on the team, all with 5 seasons of team control. Some successful rebuilds had none of these at the beginning of their rebuild.

The Reds do have a decent pipeline of pitching prospects, none of them project to be top of the rotation guys, but they don’t have to, the Reds have that covered for the next many years. They have Williamson, Stoudt, Phillips, Abbott, and Petty at the top of the pipeline. They just need two of those to make it as bottom rotation guys soon. They have others further away. On top of that, the Reds can add bottom of the rotation guys easily and cheaply via trades and free agency, which is how most teams do it.

Bullpens have constant turnover, so the future for the Reds bullpen is like every other team’s… who knows? But they currently have a closer locked in and a setup guy in Sanmartin for at least a few years. The question every year, like it is for every team, is “how much will the Reds invest in the bullpen?” The last few years it’s not been nearly enough, but that is how most pens are built, from constant investment from the outside.

Looking at this year, I agree that the Reds don’t have enough good pitching , but I disagree with your method of adding up the innings.

You say the Reds can “cover” 500 of 1400 innings needed. But that isn’t how it works. You are adding up the innings of Greene, Lodolo, Ashcraft and Diaz, and assuming the rest are uncovered. What the reality is, is that 500 innings will have around a 3.50-4.00 ERA, while 900 will have around a 4.50-5.00 ERA. A big upgrade the Reds made this year is avoiding those horrible performances from the likes of Vlad, Zeuch, Dunn, Dugger, Warren, etc.. The bad pitching they have this year is just bad, not horrible.

Anyway, that difference between the top guys and the bottom guys this year shouldn’t be that big, likely around a run a game different. That still leads to a bad overall team, basically the 65-75 win team that nearly everyone sees, but its not like what you are projecting, which is 500 decent innings and then absolutely zero run prevention for the other 900.

[Kc61]

I am not sure if you are talking about this year or the future. Concerning this year, absolutely the Reds don’t have enough pitching, not a secret or controversial opinion. Concerning the future, too early to tell.

Looking at the future, the Reds are ahead of where most if not all recent successful rebuilding teams have been in terms of pitching. I can’t think of any recent rebuilding team that had two potential aces, a solid #3 starter and a closer already on the team, all with 5 seasons of team control. Some successful rebuilds had none of these at the beginning of their rebuild.

The Reds do have a decent pipeline of pitching prospects, none of them project to be top of the rotation guys, but they don’t have to, the Reds have that covered for the next many years. They have Williamson, Stoudt, Phillips, Abbott, and Petty at the top of the pipeline. They just need two of those to make it as bottom rotation guys soon. They have others further away. On top of that, the Reds can add bottom of the rotation guys easily and cheaply via trades and free agency, which is how most teams do it.

Bullpens have constant turnover, so the future for the Reds bullpen is like every other team’s… who knows? But they currently have a closer locked in and a setup guy in Sanmartin for at least a few years. The question every year, like it is for every team, is “how much will the Reds invest in the bullpen?” The last few years it’s not been nearly enough, but that is how most pens are built, from constant investment from the outside.

Looking at this year, I agree that the Reds don’t have enough good pitching , but I disagree with your method of adding up the innings.

You say the Reds can “cover” 500 of 1400 innings needed. But that isn’t how it works. You are adding up the innings of Greene, Lodolo, Ashcraft and Diaz, and assuming the rest are uncovered. What the reality is, is that 500 innings will have around a 3.50-4.00 ERA, while 900 will have around a 4.50-5.00 ERA. A big upgrade the Reds made this year is avoiding those horrible performances from the likes of Vlad, Zeuch, Dunn, Dugger, Warren, etc.. The bad pitching they have this year is just bad, not horrible.

Anyway, that difference between the top guys and the bottom guys this year shouldn’t be that big, likely around a run a game different. That still leads to a bad overall team, basically the 65-75 win team that nearly everyone sees, but its not like what you are projecting, which is 500 decent innings and then absolutely zero run prevention for the other 900.

Obviously I didn’t mean that the Reds would have “absolutely zero run prevention” for 900 innings. I’m not even sure what that means. No opponent would ever make an out in those innings? Wouldn’t those games be rather long?

I meant that the Reds have enough good pitching to cover, say, 525 innings and not-so-good pitching for the other 900.

The Reds had a near 5 ERA last year with Castillo and Mahle starting 33 games. I see similar difficulty this season because most of the pitchers aren’t very good, with lots of innings to cover. As for the future, as reflected in the top prospect lists, most of the Reds top prospects are position players rather than pitchers.

[LeatherPants]

It will not be so easy to turn this pitching problem around without very good additions.

Not picking up more pitching at the deadline last year is going to come back and bite them.

[Kc61]

Not picking up more pitching at the deadline last year is going to come back and bite them.

Yes, there is a limit to the utility of picking up so many shortstop prospects. As athletic as they are, they generally don’t morph into top pitching prospects.

Of course, we’ve seen some teams that prefer to buy veteran pitchers in a rebuild. The Cubs are the main example, with Jon Lester, et al, and the resulting championship team. But that requires spending dough for high level veteran pitchers, probably inapplicable here.

[757690]

Obviously I didn’t mean that the Reds would have “absolutely zero run prevention” for 900 innings. I’m not even sure what that means. No opponent would ever make an out in those innings? Wouldn’t those games be rather long?

I meant that the Reds have enough good pitching to cover, say, 525 innings and not-so-good pitching for the other 900.

The Reds had a near 5 ERA last year with Castillo and Mahle starting 33 games. I see similar difficulty this season because most of the pitchers aren’t very good, with lots of innings to cover. As for the future, as reflected in the top prospect lists, most of the Reds top prospects are position players rather than pitchers.

You pretty much just ignored the points I made and repeated your points in your original post. Yes, the Reds have more bad pitchers than good, one of the reasons why they likely won’t reach a .500 record. However, the difference between the good and the bad pitchers isn’t that great this year, at least not nearly as great as it was last year. The extreme negative production guys are gone, the Reds have filled their system with better depth, even if that depth is closer to replacement level.

Btw, people really need to stop making the case that the Reds are going to miss 33 games from Castillo and Mahle. Mahle wasn’t that productive, 4.40 ERA in 104 IP. He’d be one of the bad pitchers that you lament so much about. Combining him with Castillo is deceptive. The Reds will miss Castillo’s 85 IP, but that is basically a little more than what a reliever provides.

As for the future, they already addressed most of their pitcher earlier with Greene, Lodolo, Ashcraft and Diaz. They guys will be around for many more seasons. They don’t need as much pitching as they need position players because of this. They just need two more guys to develop into back of the rotation starters, which is highly likely with the number of decent pitching prospects that are close right now.

And back of the rotation starters are cheap and easy to find. Even if no one develops, which is highly unlikely, the Reds will have the resources to add them if they do want to contend. Of course that last part is the most meaningful question with Phil in charge.

[757690]

Yes, there is a limit to the utility of picking up so many shortstop prospects. As athletic as they are, they generally don’t morph into top pitching prospects.

Of course, we’ve seen some teams that prefer to buy veteran pitchers in a rebuild. The Cubs are the main example, with Jon Lester, et al, and the resulting championship team. But that requires spending dough for high level veteran pitchers, probably inapplicable here.

In acquiring talent for a rebuild the general philosophy should always be “best player available.” There is no limit to the utility of adding high quality SS prospects, they may not morph into pitching prospects, but they are easily traded for pitching prospects. They are one of the most, if not the most desired properties in baseball. This reminds me of when the Reds didn’t draft Derek Jeter because they already had Barry Larkin. It seems would have agreed with that.

[Kc61]

In acquiring talent for a rebuild the general philosophy should always be “best player available.” There is no limit to the utility of adding high quality SS prospects, they may not morph into pitching prospects, but they are easily traded for pitching prospects. They are one of the most, if not the most desired properties in baseball. This reminds me of when the Reds didn’t draft Derek Jeter because they already had Barry Larkin. It seems would have agreed with that.

One does not “easily” trade for good pitching prospects or shortstop prospects. Trading for prospects involves another team’s GM trying to beat you, trying to gain value in the deal. There is nothing easy about it.

The Reds have recently had several opportunities to gain high level prospects - with high draft position and rebuilding trades offering desirable veterans. I wish they had acquired a few more top tier young pitchers in those efforts.. I see an imbalance in their system.

[757690]

One does not “easily” trade for good pitching prospects or shortstop prospects. Trading for prospects involves another team’s GM trying to beat you, trying to gain value in the deal. There is nothing easy about it.

The Reds have recently had several opportunities to gain high level prospects - with high draft position and rebuilding trades offering desirable veterans. I wish they had acquired a few more top tier young pitchers in those efforts.. I see an imbalance in their system.

Prospects are traded for MLB pitchers all the time, In fact, it’s cliche at this point, it’s pretty much the only trades that are made. I disagree that teams look to beat the other team, they look to improve their team first and foremost.

I don’t see an imbalance. I see the Reds with better MLB pitching that position players, and better pitching prospects than position player prospects. That usually works it way out.

Btw, the Reds did acquire quite a few pitching prospects: Williamson, Phillips, Petty, Stoudt, Hajjar and Legumina.

[Kc61]

You pretty much just ignored the points I made and repeated your points in your original post. Yes, the Reds have more bad pitchers than good, one of the reasons why they likely won’t reach a .500 record. However, the difference between the good and the bad pitchers isn’t that great this year, at least not nearly as great as it was last year. The extreme negative production guys are gone, the Reds have filled their system with better depth, even if that depth is closer to replacement level.

Btw, people really need to stop making the case that the Reds are going to miss 33 games from Castillo and Mahle. Mahle wasn’t that productive, 4.40 ERA in 104 IP. He’d be one of the bad pitchers that you lament so much about. Combining him with Castillo is deceptive. The Reds will miss Castillo’s 85 IP, but that is basically a little more than what a reliever provides.

As for the future, they already addressed most of their pitcher earlier with Greene, Lodolo, Ashcraft and Diaz. They guys will be around for many more seasons. They don’t need as much pitching as they need position players because of this. They just need two more guys to develop into back of the rotation starters, which is highly likely with the number of decent pitching prospects that are close right now.

And back of the rotation starters are cheap and easy to find. Even if no one develops, which is highly unlikely, the Reds will have the resources to add them if they do want to contend. Of course that last part is the most meaningful question with Phil in charge.

I take strong issue with the notion that the Reds have “already addressed most of their pitching” with four guys. The era of starters covering 225 innings per year are over. I gave you the numbers of innings earlier, the coverage issue is there for this team. It requires a number of starters, relievers, and backups of above average quality year after year.