Better and Better, 2
Q. M's need him in the bullpen.
A. People say this and I always think, hey, then you need Felix in the bullpen too, right?
You would never put Felix, or Cliff Lee, or anybody like that, in the bullpen even if you were the 1997 Mariners and your pen was the laughingstock of the league.
...................
What people mean by this is: "we know Kelley is a great reliever, and we're not sure what he'll be in the rotation, so why fix it if it isn't broken."
SSI is completely sure what Kelley would be in the rotation. ;- ) Not sure why anybody else isn't.
.
Q. The M's need somebody to get LH's out.
A. True dat.
- Aardsma closes
- Lowe's pitches, like farm-fresh eggs, break just the way LH diners like them
- The M's have no LH reliever
- Kelley is great vs LH's
This is the argument that has the most traction - that when the other guys bring their three lefty MOTO's up, you really need Kelley there.
Notice, however, that the Rangers' only dangerous LH hitter is Josh Hamilton, and the A's only dangerous LH hitter is Kendry Morales and maybe Abreu. The M's don't face lefty lineups in the division in 2010. Here, let's chart this out:
Lefty hitters > 115 OPS+, AL West:
- Josh Hamilton
- Jack Cust
- Kendry Morales,
- Bobby Abreu, maybe
Also, teams won't stack LH's anyway against Lee, Vargas, Bedard, or Felix. So...
But Kanekoa Texeira, as Jon noticed, is good vs LH's. So there's a little insurance.
.
Q. You can't take a guy from 70 innings to 200.
A. Only sith speak in absolutes.
:- ) Some guys have to move from the pen to the rotation, right? Anyway, yeah, you'd want to use Kelley lightly -- 170 IP, not 220. Get him out of there at 99 pitches. Skip a turn once in a while.
The idea "you never want to jump IP by more than 50" works better as a strong guideline than as a revelation from On High. Some guys convert, like Wainwright. What, you think nobody should ever convert?
.
Q. What if Kelley does stay in the pen?
A. Geoff Baker brought up the inspired comparison of Scot Shields.
From 2002-2008, pivoting around their 2004 title, Shields was a real stealth MVP for the Angels.
For some reason, Shields better than anybody else typified just how rawhide-tough the '00s Angels were, inside and out ...
Looking at it here, we remember that the Angels tried Shields as an SP, too, in 2003. Hmmmmmm, what happened ...
He threw a couple of April games, was excellent, and then went back to the pen. With the Angels well under .500, they gave him all of Aug and Sept to prove himself, 11 consecutive starts.
He was real good -- 55 strikeouts, 13 walks, 8 homers in 78 IP -- but not as good as he was as a reliever. He received 3.6 runs of support and went 4-6, 3.89 .... either his arm didn't feel good after, or the Angels missed out on one of the league's 15-20 best starters.
Granted, Shields was a huge asset in relief. But then, so would have been John Lackey.
Cheers,
Dr D