Like us on Facebook


Follow us on Twitter





Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 48
  1. #31
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    9,650
    Quote Originally Posted by missionh1llpart View Post
    I think it's a cool idea. Would be cool to see more closing caliber pitchers pitch only the first inning and then another just to pitch the 9th. Why not?
    I mean, the reason would be would you want your third best reliever coming in for a high leverage situation instead of your second best reliever? And do you want to risk basically wasting a quality reliever in a blow out.

    And relievers throw like 70 innings per year as a setup guy (barring injury) give or take a few innings, especially if you arenít a multi inning guy. If you use him in the 7th or later, you generally know that probably 80-90% of those innings he throws will be high leverage innings in a 2-3 run game or less. If you have him start 70 games for an inning, you canít guarantee heíll be used in a high leverage game. Presumably, at least in this case, heís probably starting in front of the 3-5 pitchers most often. Thereís a decent chance that dude still gets shelled and you lose 8-2. Or that your offense has a monster 2nd and 3rd inning and you win 9-4. Of his 70 innings, only something like 60% or less of those could come in close games.

    To me, Iíd rather have my best guys available for the highest leverage situations in close games. Take Josh Hader for example. The brewers are something like 17-0 in games he pitches. Part of that is because heís been incredible, but another part of that is because they use him in high leverage situations to protect a lead.
    Last edited by crewfan13; 05-22-2018 at 01:48 PM.

  2. #32
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    52,418
    Quote Originally Posted by crewfan13 View Post
    I mean, the reason would be would you want your third best reliever coming in for a high leverage situation instead of your second best reliever? And do you want to risk basically wasting a quality reliever in a blow out.
    And in the reverse of this, sometimes you don't have a close game for a week, and then you use that good reliever in an unnecessary blow out just to give him some work, then you play 5 close games in a row.

    At least with this set up, you can use that top reliever every other day consistently if you want to.

  3. #33
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    24,967
    Quote Originally Posted by Jamiecballer View Post
    I'd love to see what happened if someone ditched starters all together and rolled with 12 "relievers". The game (and some of its fans) might explode.

    Sent from my SM-A520W using Tapatalk
    This was talked about in the Yankees forum a few years ago. Just load up on elite relievers as the entire pitching staff.

    Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk

  4. #34
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Rogers Centre
    Posts
    17,512
    Quote Originally Posted by #24 View Post
    Yes, referring to relievers and their roles. Though lines are getting blurred when a 'reliever' like Romo starts a game, then a 'starter' comes in relief to pitch the next 6 or so innings. Must drive the spreadsheet guys nuts. Does Romo get a 'quality start' if he only goes one or two scoreless and/or hitless innings?
    Technically a quality start is 6 innings but would the relief starter get the quality start if he went 6 innings of relief?

  5. #35
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    9,650
    Quote Originally Posted by Jeffy25 View Post
    And in the reverse of this, sometimes you don't have a close game for a week, and then you use that good reliever in an unnecessary blow out just to give him some work, then you play 5 close games in a row.

    At least with this set up, you can use that top reliever every other day consistently if you want to.
    But it doesnít guarantee those games are any more meaningful than the games where you get blown out for a week.

    And thereís nothing that says the math of it actually works out. The numbers say the first inning averages the most runs of any inning. The theory is that relievers will fare better in the first than starters. We donít actually know if thatís true or not, since this has never been tested.

    Because the other theory is that the reasoning for runs being highest in the first is because itís the only inning thatís guaranteed to see the teams best hitters, assumingineups are set in a way where your top hittiers bat at the top of the order. Throwing a reliever isnít going to change that part of it.

    And now youíre just using the same guys slightly differently. So letís say you are able to decrease runs in the first inning by .02 runs. But now your starter, who throws 5 or 6 innings typically, throws into the 6 or 7th, where theyíre tiring and facing guys multiple times, so your average runs per inning in the 7th lets say goes up by .01. And now your 7th inning guy throws the 8th, because your 8th inning guy started, so your runs per inning in the 8th also goes up by .01. Youíre now potentially at a wash. And quite frankly, Iíll take the lower run probability late in the game, when you know the score and what lead you need to protect rather than up front.

    Now thatís clearly all hypothetical because we donít really have any data to support any of that. Itís possible that the savings in the first outwieghs the savings later. But we really donít know. And im all for creative solutions and innovation in baseball. But to me, this one doesnít seem to make sense. If youíre going to have a guy throw 5 innings, make it the first 5 so you can manipulate your player usage from there.

  6. #36
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    2,763
    If you have an inning that sees the highest average number of runs and always includes three of the other team best hitters, isnít that a high leverage situation? Current use of the closer makes way less sense since the 9th inning is most often the inning where the outcome of the game is in the least amount of suspense. Because occasionally you need someone to ďshut the doorĒ in the 9th seems a bad reason to tie your best reliever to specific inning where their value often isnít maximized.

  7. #37
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    2,763
    And the argument that guys need a specific role (aka a specific inning) ignores the fact that they feel that need because we make a big deal about it. If the expectation was always that you show up and pitch when they tell you for as many innings as youíre effective then no one would think twice about having a role. This would make pitchers far more versatile if they werenít pigeonholed to a situation that doesnít best utilize their skill set or their effectiveness on a given day.

  8. #38
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    54,715
    Love it.

  9. #39
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    San Francisco, CA
    Posts
    35,988
    Good. Make dodgerdave angry!

  10. #40
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    La Puente, CA
    Posts
    12,423
    Quote Originally Posted by Rush View Post
    Good. Make dodgerdave angry!
    About what?

    Future Hall of Shamers:
    (1) B.A.L.C.O. Barroids (2) Mark McJuicer (3) Jose Chem-seco (4) Rafael Palmeiroids (5) Ken Chem-initi (6) Jason Gi-andro (7) Ryan Fraud (8) Muscle Melk (9) Woman-Ram (10) Shammy Sosa (11) Roger Clear-mens (12) A-Roid (13) Ryan HGHoward

  11. #41
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    9,650
    Quote Originally Posted by GasMan View Post
    If you have an inning that sees the highest average number of runs and always includes three of the other team best hitters, isnít that a high leverage situation? Current use of the closer makes way less sense since the 9th inning is most often the inning where the outcome of the game is in the least amount of suspense. Because occasionally you need someone to ďshut the doorĒ in the 9th seems a bad reason to tie your best reliever to specific inning where their value often isnít maximized.
    Not if the game ends up being 8-3. Iím all for using your best reliever when it makes the most sense. But youíre also guaranteed that the opposing teams beat hitters will appear in the 7th inning or later as well. They may jot always appear in 1 inning, but they will appear barring injury or the home team winning and before the 9th. So if you want to use your best relievers in those situations as opposed to just the 9th inning, then Iím all for that.

    But like I said earlier, in this case you very easily could waste a high quality reliever at the beginning of a blowout. And jeffys argument is that thereís times over a season where you go 4+ days without having a close game. And I get that argument as well, but realistically, what do you guys think happens more, teams have stretches where they donít play close games for 4+ days or teams lose games by more than 3 runs? To me, the good teams do have stretches where they donít play close games, but those happen a handful of times a year at most. But everyone loses games by a decent margin, and trying to predict when thatís going to happen is almot impossible.

    You get usually roughly 70 innings or so out of a reliever. By saving them for the 6th inning or later, you can usually assume roughly 50-60 of those innings for a high end reliever will come in relatively close games. You can not guarantee that in close game.

    I get the numbers say run prevention and run scoring are king. And I agree with that. Run differential is a good way to judge teams. Oftentimes the teams that over perform expected wins based upon run differential have a higher than expected record in 1 run games. Now, admittedly record in 1 run games is kind of fluky. Thereís a lot of randomness that can seep in to distort that with teams getting lucky and dropping schtoinker hits in and things like that. But the teams that typically out perform that expected record in close games are the teams with great bullpens, particularly teams with great back ends of the bullpen. I wouldnít harm the back end of the bullpen to bump a guy up.

    And thatís where I land on this because to make the analytics work, the ďstarterĒ reliever has to be a pretty decent reliever. He has to have as good of or better chance to getting those guys than the starter. So we are probably talking about the type of guy who would traditionally be your 7th or 8th inning guy if you went by starting roles. Iíd rather save that guy to help me win a 1 run game potentially than reduce first inning run expectancy slightly.

  12. #42
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    9,650
    I guess to illustrate my point, I looked at betances for the yanks last year. I chose him because he was a good reliever for a good team who wasnít a closer. A lot of the other wild card teams, which are the teams I sort of artibrarily selected, had a fair amount of bullpen turnover. I understand dellin had some ups and downs, so heís maybe not the perfect example, but he made sense to me.

    He made 66 appearances last year. By my count (admittedly could be off by a game or two) in 50 or those 66 appearances (75%), he entered the game when the score was within 3 runs, which I think is an okay indicator of a ďcloseĒ game.

    I then looked at their game logs and determined what happened had he started every other game. Now, Iíll caveat this with the full understanding that him starting instead of the starter completely changes the game. I also understand that a guy likely wouldnít start truly every other day. Instead of 81 starts, you would probably push that down to 75 or maybe even 70. But letís just look at every other game roughly for the yanks. If the games he would have theorerically started, 46 of the 81 games (or 57%) ended up as 3 run games.

    Again, I know this is flawed methodology. Thereís nothing to say that starting betances couldnít have turned a few of those 4+ run losses into closer games or vice versus that starting betances could have actually turned a 2 run loss into a 5 run loss occasionally. We just donít have the data to support the argument really in any way. But thatís my point in high leverage situations. From a raw total, both situations saw the same amount of high leverage appearances. But the more traditional bullpen roll saw a much higher percentage of high leverage sitatuons.

  13. #43
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    MASS
    Posts
    53,020
    Romo is going to start today
    Ryne Stanek is going to start on Satuday
    Romo again on Sunday


    Rays really going all in on starting bullpen guys


    First Sim League Title!

  14. #44
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    San Francisco, CA
    Posts
    35,988
    Quote Originally Posted by dodgerdave View Post
    About what?
    Because this is a nerds move lol

  15. #45
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    2,763
    Quote Originally Posted by crewfan13 View Post
    I guess to illustrate my point, I looked at betances for the yanks last year. I chose him because he was a good reliever for a good team who wasnít a closer. A lot of the other wild card teams, which are the teams I sort of artibrarily selected, had a fair amount of bullpen turnover. I understand dellin had some ups and downs, so heís maybe not the perfect example, but he made sense to me.

    He made 66 appearances last year. By my count (admittedly could be off by a game or two) in 50 or those 66 appearances (75%), he entered the game when the score was within 3 runs, which I think is an okay indicator of a ďcloseĒ game.

    I then looked at their game logs and determined what happened had he started every other game. Now, Iíll caveat this with the full understanding that him starting instead of the starter completely changes the game. I also understand that a guy likely wouldnít start truly every other day. Instead of 81 starts, you would probably push that down to 75 or maybe even 70. But letís just look at every other game roughly for the yanks. If the games he would have theorerically started, 46 of the 81 games (or 57%) ended up as 3 run games.

    Again, I know this is flawed methodology. Thereís nothing to say that starting betances couldnít have turned a few of those 4+ run losses into closer games or vice versus that starting betances could have actually turned a 2 run loss into a 5 run loss occasionally. We just donít have the data to support the argument really in any way. But thatís my point in high leverage situations. From a raw total, both situations saw the same amount of high leverage appearances. But the more traditional bullpen roll saw a much higher percentage of high leverage sitatuons.
    0-0 with the 1,2,3 hitters coming up? Sounds more high leverage to me than a 3 run lead.
    Last edited by GasMan; 05-25-2018 at 04:58 PM.

Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •