Official. Reds add Sonny Gray to Roark & Wood Added.

[kevin]

Just official on Reds.com. No more trade rumor. He is not only a Red, but signed to a long term contract. This adds Sonny Gray, Tanner Roark, Alex Wood and Reds counting on Luis Castillo as a starter. Reds go into season with most starting pitching they have had in a long time. This means these other Reds left overs are fighting for the one remaining starting pitcher job as the # 5 and last man in rotation.

Scooter Gennett still here, that was a concern. Adding Matt Kemp, Puig and Conner Joe from Dodgers to Votto, Suarez, Gennett, Schebler should provide hitting. Connor Joe can play every position but must be kept on Reds 25 man roster all season or be given back to Dodgers in Rule 5, but why would Reds not want a super sub on bench who can play any position including catcher in an emergency, plus he can hit.

Add in new Manager Bell, and coaches such as getting Milwaukee Pitching Coach, and many reasons to get excited about 2019 Reds.

Reds set at Closer with Iglesias, but I wouldn't mind seeing some bullpen added also. There are still good bullpen pitchers in free agency and this Milwaukee Pitching Coach is use to having a Nasty Boys type bullpen and that worked well for Reds in 1990. I would like to see bullpen made stronger also to really make run at Cubs, Cardinals, Pirates, Brewers. This Brewers Pitching Coach added had 3 or 4 closer types in 2018 and used his best reliever in 7th or 8th inning. Reds need dept then in late inning closers because this coach system calls for more than one closer.

[*bengalfan74*]

It seems they have probably done enough to be competitive but they still need a true #1 ace to be a true contender.

I'm glad they're finally at least trying !

[guyofthetiger]

I think the pitching staff starters are pretty much set and no ace coming. The Reds will rely on their offense to win. Which is pretty good.

[CJD]

(01-22-2019, 11:44 AM)guyofthetiger Wrote: I think the pitching staff starters are pretty much set and no ace coming. The Reds will rely on their offense to win. Which is pretty good.

With Derek Johnson as the pitching coach, I expect to see a very interesting mix of "openers" (relievers that start the game, allowing the starting pitcher to come in during the 2nd time through the batting order, extending their ability to go further into the game, since the 3rd time through is often when starters start giving up higher average and OBPs) and starters. We have a lot of pitchers with starter experience that look to be on the outside of the rotation looking in who would make perfect openers. Reed, Mahle, Stephenson and Romano all have potential to be openers or long relievers.

Our pitching staff and how they are used is going to be an extremely interesting thing to watch this coming season.

[grampahol]

(01-22-2019, 11:36 AM)bengalfan74 Wrote: It seems they have probably done enough to be competitive but they still need a true #1 ace to be a true contender.

I'm glad they're finally at least trying !

Any one of these guys can become that ace. They only have to have great seasons.. That's really the only thing that separates an ace from the rest... great season or two.. Other than that they're all just pitchers. 

[*psychdoctor*]

Very good read on Gray. I think the stats speaks volumes.

https://www.mlb.com/reds/news/sonny-gray-discusses-trade-to-reds/c-302973688

[*bengalfan74*]

(01-22-2019, 03:27 PM)grampahol Wrote: Any one of these guys can become that ace. They only have to have great seasons.. That's really the only thing that separates an ace from the rest... great season or two.. Other than that they're all just pitchers. 

They indeed could...........or they can all go 9-12 with 4.50 ERA's

I'm hoping they all pitch well and an ACE does emerge, but I'm not very sure that guy is currently on the staff ?

[SunsetBengal]

(01-22-2019, 12:30 PM)Crazyjdawg Wrote: With Derek Johnson as the pitching coach, I expect to see a very interesting mix of "openers" (relievers that start the game, allowing the starting pitcher to come in during the 2nd time through the batting order, extending their ability to go further into the game, since the 3rd time through is often when starters start giving up higher average and OBPs) and starters. We have a lot of pitchers with starter experience that look to be on the outside of the rotation looking in who would make perfect openers. Reed, Mahle, Stephenson and Romano all have potential to be openers or long relievers.

Our pitching staff and how they are used is going to be an extremely interesting thing to watch this coming season.

The idea of having an "Opener" pitch through the 1st rotation of the batting order, for the "Starter" to go deeper in games, is a concept that I had never heard of, until you just brought it up.  Is this a practice that is going on regularly, and I just never even realized it? (it's been a while since I paid any serious attention to Baseball)  

[Circleville Guy]

(01-22-2019, 12:30 PM)Crazyjdawg Wrote: With Derek Johnson as the pitching coach, I expect to see a very interesting mix of "openers" (relievers that start the game, allowing the starting pitcher to come in during the 2nd time through the batting order, extending their ability to go further into the game, since the 3rd time through is often when starters start giving up higher average and OBPs) and starters. We have a lot of pitchers with starter experience that look to be on the outside of the rotation looking in who would make perfect openers. Reed, Mahle, Stephenson and Romano all have potential to be openers or long relievers.

Our pitching staff and how they are used is going to be an extremely interesting thing to watch this coming season.

This concept makes no sense to me and throws off the starter knowing exactly when he’s inserted into the game. The players union would hate it and fans would too if it back fired. Everyone wants to be revolutionary and change the game. It would make as much of a dent as hitting the pitcher 8th wins tons more games. The starter is still gonna pitch as long as he’s pitching well. A setup or closer isn’t going to “open”. That means that you start a guy every game that wasn’t good enough to be in the starting 5 or be a setup guy or closer. It sounds like a great plan to get a coach and manager fired. That’s called outsmarting yourself.

[*bengalfan74*]

(01-22-2019, 07:11 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: The idea of having an "Opener" pitch through the 1st rotation of the batting order, for the "Starter" to go deeper in games, is a concept that I had never heard of, until you just brought it up.  Is this a practice that is going on regularly, and I just never even realized it? (it's been a while since I paid any serious attention to Baseball)  

It's a concept that started gaining a lot of steam last season especially after the All Star break. Several teams have kicked around the idea of basically doing away with true starters and just having a platoon of openers, mids, and closers. One of the main reasons is the $$$$

With true starters being done away with who's going to pay an "opener" that's pitching two innings a start a gazillion dollar contract ?
I doubt how much steam this is going to gain.

(01-22-2019, 07:59 PM)Circleville Guy Wrote: This concept makes no sense to me and throws off the starter knowing exactly when he’s inserted into the game. The players union would hate it and fans would too if it back fired. Everyone wants to be revolutionary and change the game. It would make as much of a dent as hitting the pitcher 8th wins tons more games. The starter is still gonna pitch as long as he’s pitching well. A setup or closer isn’t going to “open”. That means that you start a guy every game that wasn’t good enough to be in the starting 5 or be a setup guy or closer. It sounds like a great plan to get a coach and manager fired. That’s called outsmarting yourself.

I don't like it at all either.

[SunsetBengal]

(01-22-2019, 08:14 PM)bengalfan74 Wrote: It's a concept that started gaining a lot of steam last season especially after the All Star break. Several teams have kicked around the idea of basically doing away with true starters and just having a platoon of openers, mids, and closers. One of the main reasons is the $$$$

With true starters being done away with who's going to pay an "opener" that's pitching two innings a start a gazillion dollar contract ?
I doubt how much steam this is going to gain.

Ok, that makes more sense.  

[Yojimbo]

I’m luke warm on Gray. I do like that he is looking forward to eating some Skyline and that his fastball hasn’t really dropped off at all. My biggest concern was an article I was reading on CBS pointing out that Gray changed his pitch selection last year, adding a splitter and reducing his fastball 45% to 25% and change-up from 15% to 5%. I work with a former professional pitcher, just a cup of coffee in The Show, Joe Messman. I asked him about the pitching change and he said pitchers will do that when they start feeling some discomfort in their shoulder or elbow. So, biggest concern is damaged goods/ declining athlete.

[Circleville Guy]

(01-22-2019, 09:10 PM)Yojimbo Wrote: I’m luke warm on Gray. I do like that he is looking forward to eating some Skyline and that his fastball hasn’t really dropped off at all. My biggest concern was an article I was reading on CBS pointing out that Gray changed his pitch selection last year, adding a splitter and reducing his fastball 45% to 25% and change-up from 15% to 5%. I work with a former professional pitcher, just a cup of coffee in The Show, Joe Messman. I asked him about the pitching change and he said pitchers will do that when they start feeling some discomfort in their shoulder or elbow. So, biggest concern is damaged goods/ declining athlete.

I think that the Yankees pitching coach was behind this with him and some of the other starters, that’s based on me reading some Yankee team threads about the trade.

[CJD]

(01-22-2019, 07:59 PM)Circleville Guy Wrote: This concept makes no sense to me and throws off the starter knowing exactly when he’s inserted into the game. The players union would hate it and fans would too if it back fired. Everyone wants to be revolutionary and change the game. It would make as much of a dent as hitting the pitcher 8th wins tons more games. The starter is still gonna pitch as long as he’s pitching well. A setup or closer isn’t going to “open”. That means that you start a guy every game that wasn’t good enough to be in the starting 5 or be a setup guy or closer. It sounds like a great plan to get a coach and manager fired. That’s called outsmarting yourself.

The root concept, in my understanding, is preventing the hitters from gaining a familiarity with the starting pitcher.

If you look at starters' paths through the opposing line up, across the board, their 3rd time through the lineup is when they start ceding hits and runs.

If you have a pitcher open the game, typically a person who is favorably matched with the opposing team's top 3 to 5 hitters, you can get that first go through out of the way, ideally in the first 2 innings, and then your starter can reach the 8th inning without seeing a 3rd run through of the line up. Then you can hand the ball to the closer and never hit, or risk hitting, the fated 3rd time through the lineup for a single pitcher.

I don't know if it has a significant impact compared to, say, having your starter go through the line up twice and handing the reigns to a reliever then a closer (rather than this order of reliever, starter, closer) but it certainly helped Derek Johnson distinguish himself and I don't see why he'd stop now.

[grampahol]

Over the past few years Reds pitching was lucky to get to the 3rd time around. They typically were getting chased out by the 4th inning or sooner.
While I doubt the starting lineup will all be in Cy Young contention they will be giving many more innings with hopefully a lot fewer homeruns, doubles and triples. 
At this point I feel pretty darn good about the team over all. Nobody knows how good or bad they're going to do, but they certainly won't be as horrible as the past few years.
The lineup as I see it for now will be:
1st;Votto
2nd; Gennett, possibly even Senzel if Gennett gets hurt or just plain stinks it up
SS; Peraza
3rd; Suarez
LF; Kemp
RF; You Pickem.. Puig, Shebler, Winker
CF; ? Could be the kid Senzel, possibly Trammel, Puig (I'd love to see Trammel come up and knock the cover off the ball and stick)
C; Barnhart, Casali
I don't particularly like the idea of making Senzel into a regular CFer. I'd much rather see him in the infield, same as India.. It greatly depends on how the established starters actually do as the season progresses.. 
SP, Gray, Roark, Wood, Castillo and any one of about 4 others.. 
Just because guys have had good or even great seasons, Gennett, Suarez, etc, doesn't mean they won't have down years and the young guns should get their chances to move up if that happens..  Let's at least hope so.. How many times have we seen players have down years and yet stick at their positions all season hitting .238 or somewhere in that range? It needs to change to keep the competition hot all season long. This kind of goes along with keeping Connor Joe active as well as Farmer. Sounds like a pretty potent bench this season.. 

[CJD]

(01-23-2019, 12:20 AM)Crazyjdawg Wrote: The root concept, in my understanding, is preventing the hitters from gaining a familiarity with the starting pitcher.

If you look at starters' paths through the opposing line up, across the board, their 3rd time through the lineup is when they start ceding hits and runs.

If you have a pitcher open the game, typically a person who is favorably matched with the opposing team's top 3 to 5 hitters, you can get that first go through out of the way, ideally in the first 2 innings, and then your starter can reach the 8th inning without seeing a 3rd run through of the line up. Then you can hand the ball to the closer and never hit, or risk hitting, the fated 3rd time through the lineup for a single pitcher.

I don't know if it has a significant impact compared to, say, having your starter go through the line up twice and handing the reigns to a reliever then a closer (rather than this order of reliever, starter, closer) but it certainly helped Derek Johnson distinguish himself and I don't see why he'd stop now.

Here's an example of how the Opener made a real difference for the starting pitcher:
https://www.theringer.com/mlb/2018/5/22/17379048/tampa-bay-rays-sergio-romo-kevin-cash-opener

In this scenario, the top of the Angels' lineup is a bunch of right handers. The scheduled starter is a left handed pitcher. So the team decided to roll Sergio Romo, a right handed pitcher with a penchant for restricting righties very well, out in the first inning to get through some of the Angels' best hitters.

By having Romo pitch to the first 3 batters, he allowed his starter to make it through 23 batters and 6 and 2/3rds innings. 5 of the Angels' players saw the starting pitcher a 3rd time, but it was the #4 through 8 hitters, not the #1 through 3 hitters that it would have been had he started the game.

So will that be our new philosophy? I can't say. But it's interesting and a wrinkle that our new pitching coach is likely to play with this season, probably with better results than your traditional pitching method.

Quote:Teams pitch relievers, in general, because they want livelier, fresher, and often more effective—at least in short bursts—arms to combat a team’s toughest hitters in high-leverage situations. But the most challenging inning for any staff isn’t the ninth, or the eighth, or the middle innings when a starter approaches his pitch count limit. It’s the first inning, when teams hit better than any other because it’s the only frame in which a lineup’s top hitters are guaranteed to bat. Batters have hit 10 percent better than league average in the first this season, which is the best mark in any inning.

[fredtoast]

We do not have a left handed reliever worthy of being in the majors. Garrett (4.29 ERA, 1.29 WHIP) and Peralta (5.36, 1.96) were horrible.

This is a huge hole that needs to be addressed. Right now our only hope seems to be moving Cody Reed or Brandon Finnegan to the bullpen full time, but neither of them have been that impressive. However sometimes a guy who struggles as a starter can be an effective reliver.

We actually have 3 solid right handed relievers in Iglesias (2.38, 1.07), Hughes (1.94, 1.02) and Hernandez (2.53, 0.98)

Look for us to make one more move for a left handed reliever

[Yojimbo]

(01-22-2019, 11:57 PM)Circleville Guy Wrote: I think that the Yankees pitching coach was behind this with him and some of the other starters, that’s based on me reading some Yankee team threads about the trade.

So, insight from a former MLB pitcher or assumptions by some message board guys. Hmm hard for me to choose which to believe...

[grampahol]

(01-23-2019, 01:05 PM)Yojimbo Wrote: So, insight from a former MLB pitcher or assumptions by some message board guys. Hmm hard for me to choose which to believe...

Undoubtedly always go with message board commenters as we always know more than anyone who ever did it for a living.. Are you really so cynical to not put all your eggs in the same basket with a wild, rabid weasel? 

[Circleville Guy]

(01-23-2019, 12:20 AM)Crazyjdawg Wrote: The root concept, in my understanding, is preventing the hitters from gaining a familiarity with the starting pitcher.

If you look at starters' paths through the opposing line up, across the board, their 3rd time through the lineup is when they start ceding hits and runs.

If you have a pitcher open the game, typically a person who is favorably matched with the opposing team's top 3 to 5 hitters, you can get that first go through out of the way, ideally in the first 2 innings, and then your starter can reach the 8th inning without seeing a 3rd run through of the line up. Then you can hand the ball to the closer and never hit, or risk hitting, the fated 3rd time through the lineup for a single pitcher.

I don't know if it has a significant impact compared to, say, having your starter go through the line up twice and handing the reigns to a reliever then a closer (rather than this order of reliever, starter, closer) but it certainly helped Derek Johnson distinguish himself and I don't see why he'd stop now.

You’re still probably gonna start out in the hole by pitching the teams 8th and 9th best pitchers on the team to start every game. I just don’t like the idea and it takes away the starter knowing when he comes into a game, basically it’s making 5 starters middle relievers. I don’t like the idea. I doubt that any starter would. They’re whole warm up routine would change and be more like a reliever.