If a closer is a team’s best reliever, then why isn’t he used in the highest leverage situations?
ByIf you’re still in the mood to think about baseball and haven’t read Rebecca’s article on leverage, I’d suggest you give it a look. She makes the case that we’ve been making here forever. When the game is on the line, you want your best guy out there. If he then can’t pitch the ninth, well, then that sucks, but if your lesser relievers blow the game then the ninth won’t matter (or, in the case of last night, won’t happen). It’s unorthodox by baseball standards, so it’s just a thought at this point. Managers want to do the safe thing, which is lock down the game at the end. The media might have tarred and feathered Girardi if he used Mo to quell the threat in the 7th and then Robertson blew the save in the ninth (though Rebecca and Ben have a better solution).
Expect this to be a further discussion topic this off-season.
104 Comments»
RAB Info
The Founders
Mike Axisa, Ben Kabak, Joe Pawlikowski
Editor-In-Chief
Mike Axisa Archives | Email
Managing Editors
Ben Kabak Archives | E-mail
Joe Pawlikowski Archives | E-mail
Contributing Editors
Larry Koestler (Archives)
Moshe Mandel (Archives)
Stephen Rhoads (Archives)
Weekend Writers
Hannah Ehrlich (Archives)
Matthew Warden (Archives)
Special Contributor
J.R. O'Grady (Archives)
Technical Consultant
Jay Gordon
Subscribe to RAB by RSS and Twitter
Follow @RiverAveBlues Search RAB
Banner Design By
The Mason Williams Watch
It’s one of those lose, lose situation, because when you you’re a baseball writer, you automatically have 20/20 hindsight vision.
I like the way Girardi has done it. 8th and 9th, if he sees a high leverage situation, he brings in Mo.
Personally, I thought D-Rob was the option to start the 7th.
The thing is, while I use last night’s game as an example, I am not arguing just for the sake of last night’s game, but rather for a different attitude entirely, one that bases use of relievers purely via leverage.
It’s completley out there and I imagine I’ll have my detractors, but that’s the gist.
It’s not that out there. A large percentage of RABbers have been bellyaching all year about this. If you think about it, what’s completely out there is that the current use of relievers was decided by one sportswriter who made up a stat that kind of makes no sense.
One could even argue that the Phil Coke “9th inning jitters” thing is BECAUSE of the invention of the mythical save stat.
Not saying your post at TPBP wasnt awesome and totally correct.
Interesting take on Coke.
I think you hit the nail on the head regarding Coke. The closer’s mentality will continue to exist until young players are developed without the use of roles.
The only problem I have with this theory is that they still have the top of 8th and 9th to recoup the lead offensively. Once they get to the bottom of the 9th that luxury is gone.
So why then use a lesser pitcher in the bottom of the 9th if when the Angels take the lead they will win the game.
So, you’re saying that you want Not-Mo to face 3-4 with men on base and the lead on the line in the 7th so that — should he NOT give up the lead — Mo can potentially face 8-9-1 in the 9th and the bases empty.
How is that a rational deployment of resources?
You missed my point the Angels could score 10 runs in the 7th and the Yankees could score 10 runs in the top of 8th or 9th, but if Angels score just 1 run in the bottom of the 9th game is over.
No matter what threats there are in the other innings there always a offensive chance to come back except in the bottom of the 9th.
While I agree with the general point about using your best reliever in high leverage situations, I don’t what was wrong about last night. I’m hard pressed to imagine Mo doing better than Marte did coming in, and based on his performance this season, yes, I like Phil Hughes just fine with 2 outs and a runner on 3rd.
Right. It’s a risk. But you are operating on the very common premise that the team will automatically get to the ninth with the lead intact.
This isn’t necessarily the case. Like last night.
A lead that has a better chance of being lost with D-Rob or whoever on mound then with the greatest closer in the history of the game.
Which is a completely moot point if you don’t get there with a lead.
Which is more likely, in the general case:
That not-mo will give up the lead in the 7th with men already on base and the opponents best hitters coming up, but that the Yankee lineup will re-take the lead in the next inning against the opponents’ top relievers, OR
That Mo will get out of the jam with the lead intact, pitch the next inning, and then not-mo will get three outs without giving up the lead in the ninth when starting the inning.
Bottom-line:
No one knows if the deciding rally is coming in the 7th or 8th or how many times the yanks will come back, but we all know that if the Angels take the lead in the bottom of the 9th the game is over. That’s why they use Mo then to make sure that there is a less chance of that happening.
“but we all know that if the Angels take the lead in the bottom of the 9th the game is over.”
We also all knew that the Yankees were winning RIGHT THEN and in danger of not-being-winning anymore. And before you throw up an idiotic strawman argument about pulling AJ in the first inning, obviously the situations are different. The amount of difference is illuminated for us by Leverage Index.
I had a lengthy explanation of what leverage index is and what it tells us, but I know you won’t read it. If you want to actually learn something today you can head over fangraphs and look up LI.
I will read it if you leave “stats land ” for a minute and realize that the game is played by humans and figuring out the ” leverage inning” is not as easy as just looking at numbers.
I assume that the theory we have been discussing is largely based on the high percentage of wins when a team has the lead going into the 9th.
Question: How can one base a theory by using the success rate of the system that you trying to replace?
So unless someone can take me back to a time when relievers weren’t used (or weren’t use the way they are used now) and show me the same percentage of wins for teams leading in the 9th the theory has a big hole in it.
I agree.
But in this case, you know that the 7th inning is high-leverage. True, the 8th and 9th have the potential to be important, but the 7th definitely is.
I’d rather bet on the sure thing…
Nailed it.
Precisely. If you don’t get out of the tight spot in the 7th, you might not have a lead or tie to protect in the 8th or 9th anyway.
Bullpen management in general is bass-ackwards.
You could make an argument for taking this approach in the postseason if you picked your spots wisely, but it would never work in the regular season. Over the course of a season, there are way too many high leverage situations that occur from the 7th inning on. Plus, look at the Yankees record this year when having a lead after 6 innings. How many loses would you actually be preventing by adopting this approach? Is this really a problem that needs a ground-breaking solution? This team is far better off using the tiered bullpen approach, especially with the way this offense can cover up middle-relief failures.
I’d like to see it tried over the course of a season to see what happens.
There’s a reason Francesa worships the 8th inning, after all.
That’s a great solution, going with Andy. Why not go one further with CC?
You’d have to ask Ben that.
A few other points because I’ve been thinking about this for the last 15 hours.
1. Rivera has already thrown 2.1 innings once this series. Why not have him do it again?
2. Girardi was willing to go with him with one out in the 8th. What difference does two outs make? The leverage situation was greater in the 7th.
3. Your best reliever should be pitching in the highest leverage situation and according to Fangraphs, that was in a 6-5 game with Torii Hunter up.
4. Both Pettitte and Sabathia were options for the 9th. See, for example, Randy Johnson in 2001 and Mike Mussina in 2003. It’s not even that outside of the box.
5. Nick Swisher should tattoo 89-mph fastballs down the middle. We shouldn’t even be having this debate.
+42
4. Both Pettitte and Sabathia were options for the 9th. See, for example, Randy Johnson in 2001 and Mike Mussina in 2003. It’s not even that outside of the box.
I asked this above, Ben, what is your reasoning for Andy instead of CC?
Basically just longer rest. Sabathia had thrown on Tuesday and Pettitte Monday. I’d probably pick CC, but I could see why Girardi would be hesitant to use him on one day’s rest.
Thanks, that’s what I thought, too. The problem with going with Andy is only that you need him in game 6 if he can’t shut the door and he would have just one day of rest before that.
That just about summed it up. If I read this first I would not have even bothered posting.
If you dont trust the guys who got you to 100+ wins to get 3-5 outs in the 7-8 inning what does it even matter?
Hughes and a lefty couldnt get it?
Mostly agree.
#4- Johnson was used in game 7 after there closer blew leads late in back to back games.
Mike Mussina in 2003 used to replace Clemens again game 7 early.
I think they might play it a little different in game 5 up 3 to 1 going back to NY.
But I guess they can play every game like game 7
They had me until Pettitte, I get it, it makes some sense, but I’d prefer not going that route.
If you think of it this way you put Mo in the 7th, because you know its high leverage, tying runners on, middle of the order coming up, you need to get out of this. Then Mo either gets you out of it or doesn’t. Say he gets the job done then pitches the 8th, thus you get to the 9th, by the definition of having 3 outs left, no one on (its the start of the inning), and some lead, it has to be less high leverage than it was in the 7th, so you’re fine using your lesser relievers. No need to muddy the waters with bringing in a starter.
Right. I think here there’s an exception because it’s a clinching game, but in the regular season, you could easily just use your relievers.
If you go with this strategy in the regular season, what do you do when Mo pitches in his 50th game before the all-star break? The number of high leverage situations in the 7th + 8th + 9th innings far exceeds the number of 9th inning save situations that Mo currently pitches in. The Yanks already win 98% of the games when they have a lead after 7. Seems like too big of a risk just to chase after that remaining 2%.
I can get behind this idea in a playoff series, but I just don’t see how it can work in the regular season. You’d be using Mo far too much and often in situations where it isn’t needed. Think of all the times the Yanks have piled on runs in the 7th, 8th, and 9th innings this year. Just because something appears to be a high-leverage situation at the time, doesn’t mean it really is. And you’ll never know what the highest-level situation is until you consult Fangraphs after the game.
Well, you don’t go with it in the regular season. You go with it when you have a one-run lead in the 7th inning of Game 5 of the ALCS with your opponent’s number 3 hitter up and the tying run on 3rd base.
You’re making an argument for playing everything according to a hindsight that, by definition, cannot yet exist.
As for pitching Mo too much, you treat it just as you would any other reliever that’s pitched too much in a row: you give him rest when he needs it.
Even closers need their rest and the same relievers are rarely used more than two games in a row.
Yes, as I understand it, the argument is not turning some other inning into the new “high leverage” situation (see, “teh eighth!!!), but rather a willingness to use your reliever in a situation when the game is on the line.
For instance, a game in which you have a one run lead in the seventh, the lead off man has reached base, and their 2-3-4-5 hitters are coming up. If you close the door there by using your best available pitcher, it means that the last two innings will feature the opposing teams lesser hitters.
In that case, rather than save Mo for the ninth to face hitters 6-7-8-9, you bring him in to face the tougher hitters and expect that some combination of lesser pitchers can get the opposing teams’ lesser hitters out.
Of course, you do see teams try a version of this when they don’t have a clear “best” pitcher in the bullpen. What ends up happening is that the managers get harassed in the media for using “closer-by-committee,” when the real problem is weaker pitchers in the bullpen. This is why teams pay ridiculous amounts of money to build what amounts to a stable of inconsistent pitchers
‘Yes, as I understand it, the argument is not turning some other inning into the new “high leverage” situation (see, “teh eighth!!!), but rather a willingness to use your reliever in a situation when the game is on the line.”
Nailed it.
My point is that ~80% of the games will have a high leverage situation at some point in the 7th, 8th, or 9th inning. Assuming Mo pitches his normal 60-70 games, there will be ~60 games where someone else will be needed in a high-leverage situation. I’d rather keep Mo for the unrecoverable 9th inning and have our other extremely good relievers pitch the 7th and 8th. If they give up a run, we still have 2-3 innings to get it back.
You’re still missing the larger point.
You still have to get through the 7th and 8th for the 9th to matter, at all.
The even larger point is that we have not had a problem getting through the 7th and 8th this year. Do you know what our record is this year when leading or tied after 6 or 7 innings? Hughes, K-Rob, and Aceves have been as dominant as any set up men in the league. You’re advocating a complicated solution for a problem that doesn’t exist.
If you want to bring in Mo in the 7th inning of a playoff game – I can support that. But it’s not a strategy that’s sustainable (or needed) over 162 games.
So then you don’t have to use it for 162 games, I don’t think anyone is arguing that this has to be a rule that’s strictly adhered to every day. Much to the contrary, I think the whole point is that relievers should have less rigidly-defined roles. If you go with this philosophy you don’t have to use Rivera in every high-leverage 7th inning situation in the regular season, the whole point is just that if/when it makes sense (taking into account situation, health/rest/readiness of relievers, etc.), teams shouldn’t use inferior relievers for the highest-leverage situations just because those highest-leverage situations happen to occur prior to the ninth inning.
(I just jumped in here so if I misstated anyone’s argument, please feel free to correct me.)
good point
I don’t usually post but I think this is an interesting debate, especially when applied to the postseason. That being said I still think I prefer the traditional way of using a closer.
As the innings progress everything becomes increasingly higher leverage. If a reliever on the away team gives up a run in a tie game in the bottom of the ninth the game is over, whereas a 7th or 8th inning blown lead can always be erased. That’s why I think youre best reliever (the closer) should finish the game.
Closer aside, I think that the rest of the bullpen should be used more flexibly based on situational leverage (like bringing Hughes in the game in the seventh last night).
Also I strongly disagree with the notion that starters are “better” than relievers. This is not necessarily the case and I would without question feel more comfortable with Rivera on the mound in a close game than any other pitcher we have, Sabbathia included.
1) Innings don’t always become progressively higher leverage. BP has argued–and argued well–that the highest leverage situation in many games is the first inning, or whenever the first run scores.
Late innings in close games are high leverage situations, but you can only know what innings are highest leveraged via hindsight. After last night’s top of the 7th, we all thought the Yankees would win, for example, and in game 3, the innings where the score was 4-1 proved to be higher leveraged than the later innings, when it was 6-1, 10-1.
2) Comparing starters and relievers is like comparing sprinters and marathoners. That said, starters by definition almost always have more endurance and a better pitch selection. Since you get more production out of them–in terms of the amount of outs they can record–they are, monetarily at least, more valuable, without question.
As for starters and relievers I agree with the value part (Rivera excluded). I also agree about the endurance and pitch selection. My issue is that using someone like Pettitte in the 9th is not necessarily better than using someone like Robertson. Relievers tend to have great “stuff” (its made better by only pitching one inning or so). More importantly they are used to pitching 1 inning at a time while starters sometimes need a little time to settle into a groove (like Burnett last night).
As for the leverage thing, the top of the seventh started as a relatively normal leverage inning. Like you said, we all thought the yankees would win. Even when Hughes entered the game things weren’t so bad. With Hughes on the mound the situation became “high leverage” pretty quickly. When do you start warming Mo up and can you get him loose in time? Also lets say you start warming Mo up and Hughes works out of it. How many times over the course of the game can you warm Mo up and then sit him back down?
I don’t think you are allowed to classify Mo as just a reliever. He should have his own category. I don’t know what it should be called.
“Hammer of G-d” has a nice ring to it, don’t it?
I’m in for that. Odd that God would need a hammer though, no?
God doesn’t need a hammer, he just likes using it because it looks really fucking cool.
hahah, i like that answer.
Haha I like Hammer of God too. Call him whatever you want as long as you don’t lump him with scrubs like Fuentes.
This is why “Save” is a useless stat. It allows you to construct a sentence that compares Mo and Fuentes.
Fuentes saved 48 games. His ERA+ was 116. and his WAR was .4
For comparison, Brian Bruney’s ERA+ was 114 and his WAR was -.1
Mo saved 44 games. His ERA+ was 253 (!) and his WAR was 2.0
Mo is exceptional at baseball.
Fuentes is slightly above average.
The real stats show this.
“As the innings progress everything becomes increasingly higher leverage.”
You’re completely ignoring context. The first out of the ninth is NOT higher leverage than the last out of the 7th, if there are two men in scoring position and the team’s best hitters are coming to the plate in the latter case.
“Also I strongly disagree with the notion that starters are “better” than relievers.”
You’re generalizing from an exceptional case.
Exactly.
Its not a video game tho where you can just click on Rivera’s name and he enters the game. You have to get him loose first and that would require you to know that a jam is going to happen before it happens or just warm him up every inning.
or you can just stall, call timeouts and throw over to first base constantly. ha. That could work too.
Yea that is what they did last night. You could also fake an injury to the current pitcher. I still don’t think its a sustainable strategy especially when those same relievers that would have blown the game earlier have to pitch later in the game anyway. Sometimes you win, sometimes you lose, sometimes it rains.
“I still don’t think its a sustainable strategy especially when those same relievers that would have blown the game earlier have to pitch later in the game anyway”
But with a greater margin for error. And they wouldn’t all have had to pitch. Mo throws 25 pitches, probably gets at least 4 outs and the Yanks are still winning in the ninth and the bases are empty, and it’s a weaker part of the lineup.
Youre assuming that
a) Rivera wiggles out of Hughes’ mess. I get that youd rather see Rivera be the one to serve up the hit than Hughes but its very easy to allow inherited runners to score.
b.) Even if Rivera pitches the 8th and gives up no runs, the top of the lineup could easily come up again in the 9th.
The bottom line is that you can only use Rivera once, and pitchers like Lidge and Fuentes show how many extra games you can lose over the course of the season if you can’t convert save situations. You cannot lose a game in the seventh inning, especially with the yankee offense.
For last nights game, I’m not sure anything short of three Mo’s could have saved us. Two probably could have gotten the job done.
The concept in general I am all for. The excuse people use for waiting to use the closer till the 9th inning is that the ninth is a different beast. But in these playoff games, every inning from 7 on feels like do or die. Joba and Phil, or I should say Joba, Phil and Robertson, all have bullpen experience. If they can’t get the job done in the ninth, they probably would not have gotten it done in the 7th or 8th either.
Bring back the Fireman, baby!!
I agree, though I wouldn’t lump Robertson with Hughes and Joba.
Robertson has been huge. Huge. This postseason. #yesimighthavealittleRobertsonobsession
If you put Mo in for the 7th and 8th it gives the Yanks more chances to increase their lead.
Also the psych advantage of holding down the Angels after the Yanks took the lead.
Didn’t Billy Martin do something like this with Lyle or Goosage in the 77 or 78 play-offs?
Possible solution is too closer types on the team ex a Mo and a Hoffman and a new stat other holds and saves.
Maybe “rescues” get out of an inning with the tying run on base is a “rescue” stat. Needs something the sports writers and agents like.
Maybe the Save should just go the way of GWRBI…a meaningless stat that nobody remembers…and we should focus on measuring player’s abilities so that we put the best players in the most important situations.
This.
There is only one Mo and Yankee fans are extremely spoiled. There is Mo and then every other reliever or closer who is merely a warm blooded human. Just look at Broxton, Papelbon and Nathan this postseason. Lidge had his troubles all year and is seemingly a different pitcher month to month for the past three years. I know Mo has blown postseason saves, but the guy is in a league of his own. He makes every other Yankee reliever look like shit because it is so easy for him.
On board with all of this. Of course a manager will never do it for lots of reasons, but its the kind of thing that will probably gain enough steam eventually to be implemented. Once someone does it successfully, everyone will copy it.
The thing that just bugs me about yesterday is what Ben was talking about above: Joe should have been thankful Burnett got them as far as he did. With 9 outs and a two run lead to the world series, you go for the jugular. There is absolutely no reason Hughes and Mo couldn’t combine for 3 innings, with maybe D-Rob/Joba getting one or two outs.
Be happy with what Burnett had done, take the ball, and turn the ball over to your shutdown relievers. Hughes didn’t do the job he was put into last night, but he wasn’t exactly put into the best situation.
I just don’t get it. Why dink around with your lesser options when the WS beckons?
The thing is, the game evolved away from that. It used to be like that. I guess every style comes back eventually, and it is just a matter of time before a team implements this strategy full time. If one team does, others will follow.
Girardi was more or less in a no win there. He got killed for taking Andy out at 81 pitches and Burnett was at 80.
Despite the bad first, AJ had pitched better the last few innings.
Hindsight, 20/20, yadda.
I mean, taking Lackey out was a historically bad decision. Except LA went on the win the game so it is no big deal. If they got eliminated on that, that would be something Mike Scoscia (??) would be remembered for.
Taking Lackey out wasn’t stupid. It was one of those decisions that was going to be evaluated based on the outcome. Either way, if Tex makes an out Scioscia is the Smartest Manager Alive. If he gets a hit Scioscia gets second guessed.
“It was one of those decisions that was going to be evaluated based on the outcome.”
The reaction is irrelevant to whether the right decision was made, though. We can still analyze whether the smartest decision was made by the manager, regardless of the result.
True. But if he’d left Lackey in and Teixiera had gotten a hit, everyone would be pointing to Tex’s beastly numbers against Lackey and wondering how the hell he could have left him in. Anyway, I think it was probably the right decision. Lackey walked Jeter on 4 pitches and then gave up a decently hard hit ball to Damon. I would have been a little skittish to leave him out there too.
If Teix got a hit, the most damage he could have done was tie the game. More likely, one or two would have scored. Lackey could have finished the inning still with the lead. When the starter is shutting out the other team, the other team can’t wait for the guy to come out. I know when they took Lackey out, I was ecstatic. I was actually surprised they pulled him. But, I’m sure Scoscia had his reasons and he clearly knows more about his team than I do. It just didn’t work out this time.
Right, but Burnett hadn’t been exactly great all game. I can even understand starting the inning with him, but as soon as the 1st runner got on, Hughes should have been in. He didn’t ever have Hughes warming at that point (the Joba love affair was rearing its ugly head yet again).
Its the playoffs, you just had a day off and Mo hadn’t pitched in 3 days. Ditto Hughes. Sure, he could have been killed for pulling AJ, but it doesn’t mean it wasn’t the right move.
If we are in the same situation tomorrow, its still the right move.
The Yankees are 71-2 this year when leading after 6 innings. That’s the reason why this idea will not be implemented. It’s not the MSM and it’s not the Save stat.
So, basically…this idea is stupid because Mo is great, the offense is great, and Phil Hughes was really effective this season.
Betting on the walkoff is stupid. There were 14 games this season that could easily have gone the other way. Maximizing your chances of winning is always a better idea. Having your best relievers pitch when the outcome of the game is most in question is a no-brainer. We can actually look at historical data to inform us about the situations in which a game is most on the line.
I don’t think the idea is stupid. I support the idea in playoff type of situation. I just don’t think the idea is sustainable over 162 games and I don’t think it’s needed. The Yankees are 130-5 in the Girardi era when leading after 6 innings. What problem are we trying to solve?
There were 124 games this year that had a high leverage situation in the 7th, 8th or 9th inning. Mo can maybe cover 70 of those games. What’s the solution for the other 54 games?
Why wouldn’t relievers be getting needed days off under this system just like they do with the tiered system?
That’s my point…if you can only cover ~60% of the high leverage situations with your best pitcher, is it worth changing your bullpen usage philosophy?
Right now, you only cover, what, 20% to 30% of those high-leverage situations with your closer in confining him to the 9th. Maybe less.
Yeah, it’s worth changing your bullpen usage philosophy.
This is precisely the point that Tubby is missing… Of course you’re not going to get Mo in for 100% of the highest leverage situations under this new philosophy, but you’re going to get him into more of those situations under this new philosophy than you would when saving him for save situations, like you do under the currently-accepted philosophy.
The 71-2 mark is unusually good. Historically, I’d wager.
It’s the exception, not the rule.
the 71-2 record is indicative of a really good bullpen. If the two best relievers werent that great than how would putting them in higher leverage situations help anything. Apparently the six and seventh inning guys did the job often enough to show that the best relievers can continue to close out games. That being said the 71-2 record could indeed be the exception to the rule.
Huh? Even if we accept your premise, the most likely explanation is that the Yankees have good relief pitchers. That’s not an argument against using your best reliever in the highest leverage situations to maximize performance.
Again…I support the idea of using your best reliever in high leverage situations. However, there are too many of those situations during the course of the year to make this idea work. Since the beginning of the Torre era (I could only find data going back that far), we have a 97+% winning percentage when leading in late innings. What problem are we trying solve?
This theory also forgets the fact that the actual players arent robots and like to be used in situations that are comfortable and they know. Mo is the closer. he prepares to pitch the 9th and maybe the 8th in oct. He doesnt prepare to put out fires in the 7th. That is why you are supposed to have a deep and talented bullpen. Players respond to roles.
And it is why the bullpen is so important no matter how many here think its not. That is why Joba should have been in the pen all season and this starter thing was a fiasco. There is value in the pen. The whole 200 innings vs 75 inn is great in theory too but that doesnt hold weight. Use your eyes. Every game here is decided in the pen.
I have very mixed feelings about Joba but other than that I 100% agree with what you. This bullpen remodeling looks great on paper but in real life falls short. Also, as someone said in an earlier post the yankees are 130-5 in the last two years when leading after 6. Can anyone honestly think that using the relievers in a different order would make the yankees win more games in the long run?
This theory also forgets the fact that the actual players arent robots and like to be used in situations that are comfortable and they know.
No it doesn’t. Players are comfortable in the roles they’re in because they’ve been classically conditioned to expect those roles. If you change the roles, eventually you change the players.
Will there be resistance, discomfort, and growing pains? Sure. That’s not a valid reason to refrain from discarding an outmoded philosophy if a better one emerges.
Translation: I’m smarter than everyone because I use my eyes. Nevermind that I don’t present any evidence. Its self-evident.
Thank you Lanny.
one of the people who is the largest proponents of this and has been for over a year is Max Kellerman. Unfortunately he quit his radio show almost a year ago but all last year he was always saying its what should become of the closer… the relief ace. you want your best guys on the mound the most time possible. Mo is the best, and if he is available for 5 outs… give him the most important five. 2 men on in the 7th wiht a one run lead in the ALCS is the best spot for a guy you KNOW will get the out and that is Mariano. who know by the 9th inning if we slammed the door shut in the 7th that one run deficit might feel like 6 to the angels by the bottom of the 9th and would easily be mowed down by Hughes or D-Rob heck it might have been a 3 or 4 run lead by then. Of course for this to actually happen they need to make a stat that makes what Mo would do for the team in shutting down the game in the 7th and 8th worth more to all the diva relievers than getting 3 outs in the 9th with no one on and a 3 run lead.
By this logic you should put in the reliever that does the best job not allowing inherited runners to score. Over the course of his career River allows about 40% of his inherited runners to score. So you dont KNOW he is going to get the out. You do KNOW that when you give him the ball with a lead in the 9th, he has been successful more than 95% of the time over the last two years. Let Mo does what he does best.
That’s the worst usage of interpretation of statistics I’ve ever seen.
Mo’s 95% success rate as a closer is not equitable to Mo’s 40% inherited runner rate. You’re using two disparate statistics to compare one concept, as if both stats are speaking about the same thing. They’re not.
Wholly wrong.
easy on the hyperboles buddy.
Let me explain. Just because a pitcher has a low ERA does not mean he has a low WHIP. Follow? Likewise, just because a pitcher has a low WHIP does not mean he always retires the first batter he faces.
So, what I was saying is that Rivera clearly is very good at pitching scoreless innings that he starts. This is very simple.
Now lets get a little more abstract. When Rivera is brought into a game where runners are already on base, he is not overly effective. The evidence of this is that he allows a sizable number of his inherited runners to score. Other relievers are better at keeping inherited runners from scoring. This is a fact.
The ultimate goal is keeping runners from scoring. Rivera does this best when he starts an inning. The yankees have other relievers that are better options when there are already people on base. Therefore, putting in Rivera with the tying run on third might not actually be the best way to use him.
Those last to sentences are debatable but I hope that my message is clearer now. Rivera does well in his current role. If his role was to mop up other peoples messes he has not demonstrated that he would achieve a comparable level of success.
yea and mo’s whip is INSANELY LOW… i think he walks about 10 batters all season on average. this is about about thinking differently than all the traditionally defined roles and getting the best out of your pitching staff that you can if you need to define a role to someone you say your role is to get guys out when i call on you to pitch. that sounds like a role to me. none of this 8th inning guy 9th inning guy 7th inning guy. you should have guys who can get lefties out guys who can get righties out and 2 guys who you can rely on when it’s needed most.
jsut a sidenote:: What about in 1996 our best reliever was definitely not named john wetteland who was our closer. mo was used primarily as the guy to get us through the toughest spots of a game. We had incredible success that year because of Mo… he probably shouldve been in the running for both the mvp and cy young that year. that team without mo doesnt even make the playoffs nor does it spring board the dyansty years.
I never said Mo didnt have a good whip. my point was that 1.) the traditional system has worked great for the yankees the last 2 years. 2.) just because Rivera is your best reliever does not mean that he is the best at working out of other peoples jams. The stats show that he allows about 40% of inherited runners to score which is worse than many other relievers.
That’s funny Rebecca. You basically stole what every one said at Lohud’s blog and posted it on your website. How does it feel to be such a hack?
You don’t even give people at Lohud any credit. You absolutely stole every word from the Lohud readers and River Ave Blues had the nerve to link to it. You should be ashamed of yourself Rebecca.
They even used the words, Leverage many times at Lohud.
This is an analysis that has been done many times in the past and it’s been discussed all over the place. I don’t think Rebecca or RAB are implying this is some sort of amazing original thought, she just did a little legwork and wrote a nice post about the issue, and it’s an interesting post and issue so we’re discussing it. The idea that you think she stole this idea from a LoHud discussion, as if the idea originated in that discussion, is laughable.
You guys used the word “leverage,” and then Rebecca used that same word in her post? Seriously, dude? You fail.
and max kellerman said it over a year and half ago… big deal.. the subject is relevant right now and being discussed
Fuck, it was in Moneyball IIRC. Or in some article that came out related to Moneyball.
Anyway, yeah, this is a relatively old concept now. Fail.
I’ve been arguing this point for years and only recently have people realized that I’m not totally freaking nuts. The idea of the closer is probably the stupidest thing in baseball. I’ve pointed to the Tiger’s ALDS a couple of years back. The Yankees lost and Mariano Rivera didn’t pitch once. How are you going to go through an entire series and not use your best reliever once? That still seems illogical to me.
When Torre’s book came out this year I went to B&N in Manhattan and got it signed by him. I knew I was going to have about 10 seconds to say one thing to him and then they’d force me on my way. What I decided to say was, how could you leave Mariano in the bullpen in 2003 with Weaver on the mound. He just gave me a nervous laugh and said he wished it had turned out better. It could have, if he used Mo. What an idiot.
It’s strange that closers can get paid like starters, but managers usually hide closers from games until a certain set of arbitrary conditions are met (the save situation).
If you are willing to pay a reliever $8 million or more, you must think he is the best option on the team to pitch a scoreless inning. So why not pitch him whenever you absolutely must get a scoreless inning? It’s absurd.
Joe Sheehan and the crew at Baseball Prospectus (among others) have been beating this particular drum for years. It’s completely obvious, it makes all sorts of sense, and we’re a long, long way from it ever happening. The “9th inning is the most important — because it’s the last — hence we need our tough, gritty closer pitching that inning no matter what” baloney is jammed in the minds of baseball men and it’s going to be hell prying that nonsense loose.
Hell, there are still people in baseball who are willing to pay Willy Taveras actual money. The chances of a radical shift in bullpen management over the next decade are slim.