Obligatory Reliever Usage Article
March 21, 2011 at 8:22 pm by Capitol Avenue Club under Atlanta Braves
There has been some debate over who should be the team’s closer: Craig Kimbrel or Jonny Venters. If you’re going to stick to strictly defined roles, it doesn’t matter who pitches the 8th inning and who pitches the 9th inning, you have to get through both to win the game and in most cases they’re equally important in the long run. Baseball fans, media members, and even some baseball operations personnel (including managers and coaches) tend to view the 9th inning as more important, but this couldn’t be a dumber position to assume. Why do they do it? Saves, of course.
Per Wikipedia, the Save was invented by Jerome Holtzman, a baseball journalist, in 1960. His intentions seem good: feeling that ERA, W-L, and other various ancient metrics were inadequate, Holtzman wanted to establish a way to measure a reliever’s effectiveness (again, per Wikipedia). It’s now obvious that Saves are a pretty poor way to judge a reliever’s effectiveness, especially in today’s game–Kevin Gregg had as many saves as Billy Wagner last year, for example–but we can’t fault the guy for trying. It is not Jerome Holtzman’s fault that managers deploy their relievers in a way that maximizes the save total of the relief pitcher they’ve deemed “closer” rather than in a way that maximizes the team’s win total.
Let’s take a look at the save rule (Wiki):
That rule states the official scorer shall credit a pitcher with a save when such pitcher meets all four of the following conditions:
- He is the finishing pitcher in a game won by his team;
- He is not the winning pitcher;
- He is credited with at least ⅓ of an inning pitched; and
- He satisfies one of the following conditions:
- He enters the game with a lead of no more than three runs and pitches for at least one inning
- He enters the game, regardless of the count, with the potential tying run either on base, at bat or on deck
- He pitches for at least three innings
We’re all used to this rule and everything, so it’s impossible to judge it from a completely bias-free perspective, but do you notice how arbitrary the rule is? Especially condition 4. Where did these conditions come from? A sportswriter made them up. That’s where they came from. And the joke’s on baseball, because managers are letting some journalist’s inane set of rules written in the ’60′s dictate how they should manage the game, even though doing so often runs counter to the optimal use of a manager’s resources if he’s trying to win the game. Yeah, that’s a really good strategy.
So Fredi Gonzalez has two choices. Choice one is to cater to fantasy baseball players and a dead writer. If that’s what he wants to do, having a defined “closer” is the way to go. And, like I said, it doesn’t really matter if he picks Kimbrel or Venters to do it, they’re both good pitchers and they’re both going to get their share of important PA’s when the game is close under this policy. One of them will get about $2 million more during his first year of arbitration due to the 40 saves he racks up, which is the only meaningful result of this decision (should he decide to be a moron and go with a defined closer).
However, if he’s more concerned with winning baseball games and making the playoffs and things like that, he might want to consider using his relief pitchers in a way that will maximizes his team’s chances of winning, which involves ignoring “saves”, “save opportunities”, who his “closer” is, who his “set-up man” is, et cetera.
The optimal use of the bullpen would involve using Kimbrel or Venters during the most important plate appearances of the game once the starter is out. Whether they come in the 7th, 8th, or 9th inning, it doesn’t matter. If you don’t get through the 7th or 8th inning, the 9th is irrelevant, and any pitcher the Braves bring north from camp will be perfectly capable of navigating the 9th inning with a 3-run lead something like 96% of the time. For example, if the Braves are up 3-1 on Philadelphia with 1 out in the top of the 7th and Jimmy Rollins and Carlos Ruiz are on first and second base, Jonny Venters should be brought in to face Chase Utley, Ryan Howard, Raul Ibanez, et cetera. Similarly, if the Braves are up 3-1 on the Dodgers with 1 out in the top of the 7th and Rafael Furcal and Andre Ethier are on first and second base, Craig Kimbrel should be brought in to face Matt Kemp, Casey Blake, Juan Uribe, Marcus Thames, et cetera. Fredi has two relief aces at his disposal, one right-hander with extremely high strikeout/walk tendencies and one left-hander with high strikeout/walk tendencies and extremely high ground-ball tendencies. It’s not that hard to pick the spots to use them that are most beneficial to the team (hint: they rarely come with a 3-run lead and 3 outs to get).
Sure, he’ll be second-guessed by reporters, analysts, fans, and even *gasp* bloggers, especially if his move didn’t work that particular night. Tough, you’ve got to have thick skin to do that job anyway. It’s not like he wasn’t going to be second-guessed all the time, anyway.
There’s no good reason to manage a bullpen the way most managers do these days, and the only (bad) reason to do it that way is: “that’s the way it’s done”. Ignoring the defined “closer” role and deploying the best relief pitchers in the most important situations, regardless of the inning, will net a team a few more wins in the long run, and that’s how managers concerned with winning should manage their bullpen.
Not that I expect the guy who justifies batting Heyward 6th instead of 2nd by saying: “Before it’s all said and done, Jason’s a kid who is going to be a middle-of-the-order run producer. In my head, if we have to start tomorrow, I’m putting him in the six hole” to get this right.
UPDATE: Unrelated, but I did this Q&A with Brotherly Glove.
Loading ...
Wholeheartedly agree. My favorite part about the idiocy of the closer role is when a team is on the road in an extra inning game.
“Let’s keep our best reliever in the ‘pen. Who else would close this one out when we get there?”
Right, so you just don’t use him and lose the game because you had what is likely one of your middle relievers or even your long reliever in, just because you needed someone to pitch that one last inning with a lead.
Fans deserve as much credit for this lunacy as managers. As Keith Law said, it’s the IBM theory. You can’t get fired if you buy IBM. You can’t get fired if you use your closer in “save situations.” Fans get in an uproar every time a non-closer blows the game and everyone second-guesses the manager’s decision.
This is one of my most passionate disdains in all of sports.
I really wish Fire Jerry Manuel hadn’t deleted the blog because there was a hilarious rant about Manuel refusing to use his closer in a tie game on the road. Justification: “That’s baseball”
I think something that’s just as asinine as the ‘closer’ designation is the ‘set-up’ role. You have one of these two pitchers (Venters/Kimbrel) who will be the set-up guy and the other to close. What exactly are you setting up?
If Scott Proctor comes into a close ballgame in the 6th or 7th inning and blows a lead, you bet your ass that there will be some angry people coming here to rant…. Oh… Nevermind.
One other thing that I find funny is the “closer carousel” that baseball writers/reporters/people like to talk about. One guy will be the closer one year, but then the next year, it will be someone else. And then you have guys like Jeff Francoeur, Garrett Anderson, and Melky Cabrera taking up different outfield spots for significant time throughout an entire season.
Where are the baseball experts anyway? Many times they don’t seem to be within the organizations.
Count me in. I agree also.
But there’s something to it that we’re not grasping and haven’t stumbled across the most effective way to use these guys yet. It’s a position still in mid-evolution. That’s why I think in part, writers still don’t know how they choose to view relievers.
The Fireman of the 70′s clearly put forth a more representative night’s work than today’s one inning specialists and closers do. I look at a guy like Trevor Hoffman and think to myself, I’ll take Elroy Face, Hoyt Wilhelm, and Ron Perranoski first. Then there’s guys like Mike Marshall, Goose, and I’ll even throw Tug McGraw and Quissenberry in as those I still have more appreciation for than I do the stat accumulators of the game today (save Mariano Rivera).
Just to agree again with you, if the optimal time to bring in your best reliever is the 7th inning…so bit it. Theo Epstein once thought the committee way would work, but he himself messed that up miserably. All it will take is for one manager to do it, and be successful at it. Like any trend, others will follow; just like they did LaRussa with his usage of relievers and specializing Eckersley, and Davey Johnson with his introduction of the 5-man rotation.
I love the topic of relievers and I personally like to point to the Yankees as the first team to specifically groom a pitcher for the 8th inning role when they did it with Ron Davis setting up for Goose. The Reds’ Nasty Boys showed the potential of specialization again. Then when Mo Rivera did it so successfully for the Yanks in 1996 behind Wetteland, the idea really took off. Everyone wanted to model the Yanks Nelson; Stanton; Mo trio to end games.
Perhaps it’s up to the *bloggers to rectify the plight of the Closer for Baseball. Everything works in cycles. More changes are coming to the dynamic of relief pitchers, I’m sure.
yeah i would love for him to use them based on the situation and not the inning but i don’t expect him too. I feel like I am going to be disagreeing with his moves a lot this season.
Better question, where is Billy Haywood? That kid was portrayed to be a better manager than half of the current ones.
Remember when they asked him if he would bunt and he tooled the idiot pitching coach?
#4 I don’t see this as a Gonzalez prblem but a widespread one. I’ll disagree with him a lot too, but I likely would be regardless of who the manager is.
What if you have a right hander coming to bat with runners on first and second and one out. Too me I would want to bring in Venters because of the high ground ball rate. Do you think it is more important to have a righty-righty matchup than it is to have a ground ball pitcher? Opinions??
Unfortunately, the save has become such a universally accepted statistic that most elite relievers aren’t going to be happy with a manager who ignores them. Getting a lot of saves leads to national attention, all-star appearances, higher arbitration awards, and better free agent contracts, and spreading saves around a bullpen is going to piss off anyone who thinks he should be the closer.
Fortunately, the Braves are in an ideal situation with two second-year guys who don’t have the stature or standing to complain about their usage, so we’ll see how it goes. The Heyward/lineup issue has me thinking of Gonzalez as somewhat backwards thinking, but I suppose I should give him a chance.
Venter, Kimbrel, Moylan, Sherill, Linebrink, O’Flaherty and Proctor/Martinez/KK should enable Gonzo to have great flexibility after the SP finishes. I understand the article but I can see Gonzo will probably default to a conservative view while in his first year.
Marek & Medlen will be good addition to the bullpen after the roster expands and if Medlen’s recovery allows him to pitch this year. I hope Marek will keep up his performance this year in AAA and push for a spot in the bullpen should injuries take hold.
CAC, look forward to your notes from minor league ST.
Jordan,
The truth is there’s really no unfavorable match-up for Jonny Venters. Ideally it’d be a situation where a GB is useful and a LH-hitter is up, but lefties, righties, DP opportunity, 1B open, it’s cool to use him wherever you need.
I read your blog every day, and this is the first time I’ve commented on it. I feel obliged to do so for two reasons:
1. You are absolutely correct that the “save” is an over-hyped, asinine statistic. You always need to throw the best possible pitcher in the most opportune situation. Throw who needs to be thrown, when they need to be thrown, to optimize the chances of getting the neccessary out.
2. I love how you criticize FG for where he bats Heyward when a meaningful pitch has yet to be thrown. I know it’s your blog and can write however you feel at any time and I respect that. I also respectfully disagree with your implied characterization of our new manager. The way I take it is that you think he’s an idiot for batting him sixth.
I think that FG has a little more experience than you or I at the whole managing thing. He also, in my opinion, has a pretty good feel for his ballclub. I think there are reasonable arguments for either spot in the order. I think our PROJECTED lineup looks pretty good as he presently plans on having it. The right-left alternating order cannot be discounted. The matchup problems it creates in the latter stages of the game is a big deal. It can provide the kind of late game decisions that are tough for the opposing manager. And I can GUARANTEE if it ain’t workin, he’ll change it. Bobby didn’t put Prado at the top until a month or so into the season and it still worked out ok. These things can be changed. They’re not etched in stone.
As I said, I know it’s your opinion, but let’s at LEAST throw the first pitch of the season before you think he’s stupid about a batting order he hasn’t even posted on the dugout wall.Who’s to say that the six hole isn’t EXACTLY where we NEED him? Only time will tell.
Great article!
@Boston Braves Fan: Sad, but true. Hopefully, baseball players will soon be judged by their actual performance. What more do you need to know to judge a relievers value than ERA, FIB, WHIP, strikeouts, walks, and innings? The media and fans have no problem evaluating the value of hitters without their being given a “win” or a “comeback” for making a particularly meaningful hit.
CAC, I hadn’t really given it as much thought as you, but you convinced me that the whole closer idea is dumb.
In fact, looking at runs scored by inning (‘ve put a link to these statistics at the end of this post), far more runs are scored in the 7th and 8th innings than in the 9th. Even once you factor in that the closer is a better pitcher and that the home team often doesn’t bat, or doesn’t have to finish the inning if they do, the 9th inning sees far fewer runs scored than the 7th and 8th. There are probably several reasons for this, but among them is the fact that there are more starters hitting in in the 7th and 8th innings than the 9th in the NL. These starters are often eager to get a crack at the relievers, too, especially if a dominant starter has just been removed.
The most logical approach might actually be the opposite of the conventional one: pitch your best reliever in the 7th, your next best in the 8th, and your third best in the 9th, tweaked for match-ups if necessary.
Another problem with the “traditional” closer is that it sometimes forces you to pitch your best reliever several nights in a row. This happens even if there isn’t any real reason to suspect a comeback, or if the bottom of their order is hitting in the 9th, just so the closer can get the save.
Runs by inning in each league:
http://www.baseball-reference.com/blog/archives/404
Who’s to say that the six hole isn’t EXACTLY where we NEED him?
I am. The #2 spot in the order has more impact on run scoring than any of the other ones, and more times than not your best hitter should be hitting there. The #2 spot comes up in as many important situations as the #3 spot, more overall, and less frequently with nobody on and 2 out. Moving Heyward out of the #2 spot and into the #6 spot where he’ll come to the plate in fewer important situations and about 50-75 fewer times a year is one of the dumbest things a manager could possibly do. It’s inexcusible. His justification for doing so makes no sense, either. None at all.
The right-left alternating order cannot be discounted.
What’s wrong with:
1. Prado
2. Heyward*
3. Chipper#
4. McCann*
5. Uggla
6. McLouth*
7. Gonzalez
8. Freeman*
As far as lefty/righty alternation goes, it’s the same damn thing as Fredi’s line-up. As far as scoring runs goes, the one above is way better.
…………
Keep in mind that I’ve held back on this subject. What I’ve really wanted to write about this would be NSFW and probably get me arrested or something.
http://espn.go.com/blog/new-york/mets/post/_/id/5994/jerry-explains-decisions
Manuel insisted closer Francisco Rodriguez was not the right person to summon with the score tied in the bottom of the ninth, one out and the bases loaded. Instead, Ryota Igarashi entered to face Ryan Zimmerman and surrendered a game-ending sacrifice fly.
“That’s not what a closer does. That’s not his role,” Manuel said, a belief reiterated by pitching coach Dan Warthen.
Manuel then appeared to make the case that the Mets need a bona fide back-end-of-the-bullpen-type reliever more so than a starting pitcher. He suggested the Mets’ inordinately high number of walk-off losses — nine — is tied to the lack of a legitimate eighth-inning pitcher.
The Mets had hoped in spring training Kelvim Escobar and Igarashi would team for that role, but Escobar will never throw a pitch for the organization because of a shoulder injury and Igarashi has underwhelmed. The most trusted eighth-inning pitchers at this point are Pedro Feliciano and Elmer Dessens.
“All the walk-off losses on the road is indicative of an eighth-inning guy. That’s where an eighth-inning guy pitches. It’s basically that simple,” Manuel said. “If that eighth-inning guy is the guy, he pitches the tie game on the road. At home, the closer pitches the tie game because you get a chance to bat. That’s just the way that works. I mean, that’s baseball.”
Any thoughts on where the pitcher feels more comfortable? Maybe not as important as the situation and the pitcher’s strengths, but the late innings are about nerves and who can overcome them. It seems that a factor to consider is where a pitcher has the most confidence pitching.
Thanks Tommy.
Kieran,
These guys are major leaguers. If they’re only comfortable pitching in a certain role it’s a ‘them’ problem and the manager should be working to change the culture rather than catering to them.
Going with an undefined closer takes support (or edict) from the front office; a manager with absolute security in himself and his job; or a group of pitchers who haven’t the right to demand the defined “role”.
With the young pitchers, the Braves can go about it in the correct way, but I’d hesitate to think Fredi Gonzalez is going to want to have a controversy of “who’s the closer?”
Since Kimbrel/Venters are righty/lefty, he could do it and justify it by referencing their age and inexperience.
It won’t matter when Billy Wagner comes back anyway.
http://paullebowitz.com/blog/
I know it will never be done, but since other managers always try to “turn” Chipper around how about Chipper 2, Uggla 3, Mac 4….makes you lefty heavy at the bottom, but at least the manager can’t send out his best lefty ag Heyward, CJ, Mac. in order. BTW…I would drive the Heyward bats second bus if I could. You could not be more right…I want the opposing pitcher to have to “deal with” Heyward first inning no matter what.
I think there’s a big difference between catering to the pitcher and doing what’s best for the team. If you have a guy who has continuously folded in a certain role and lost his confidence, I wouldn’t say you’re “catering” to him by not putting him back in that situation. These guys might be major leaguers and they should be able to overcome these hurdles, but history has given us a handful of those who could not.
Perhaps I missed your point, but that’s my two cents.
While I agree that batting Heyward 2nd is more optimal than batting him 6th, it is an extreme exaggeration to claim batting him 2nd is “way better”. We all know such a minor alteration of the lineup would account for a very small boost in offensive output.
If batting Nate 2nd gives him the confidence to put up an 800 OPS then I am all for it. Afterall, I am certain an 800 OPS Nate in the 2 hole and a 900 OPS Heyward in the 6th hole will score a lot more runs than a 900 OPS Heyward in the 2 hole and a 700 OPS Nate in the 8th hole. It is the manager’s job to get the most out of all the players he has, and if this is the way Fredi is trying to maximize Nate’s output then I can’t really argue with it.
I imagine Nate opens up the season hitting in the 2 hole. If he is struggling after the first 3-4 weeks, I imagine Heyward will be moved up to replace him. If Nate struggles even more and Freeman is holding his own, expect Nate to be hitting 8th and Freeman 6th (which is the ideal lineup in the first place, in my opinion).
@coachrob1976 / 12
Your quote of,
“I think that FG has a little more experience than you or I at the whole managing thing.”
is in my opinion a ridiculously weak argument, as though the first day someone becomes a manager they suddenly become privy to information us regular folk couldn’t possibly hope to discern or understand and, thus, any decisions they make thereafter are immune to criticism.
I say fuck that. You’re putting baseball managers on a pedestal they do not deserve. Also, I am not just coming at you as this argument has been used countless times, countless places.
@ Nick / 21
So Nate Mclouth getting penciled into the 2 hole is going to make him burst at the seams with confidence thus increasing his production? Wow.
There should not be any debate over this whatsoever. If FG does indeed bat Mclouth 2nd and Heyward 6th, he is essentially giving Mclouth 50-75 more at-bats during the course of the season while costing Heyward the same number. Think of all the late game situations where the score is tied or the Braves are down a run or so and it’s the bottom of the 9th, the lineup has just turned over for the 5th time, and instead of Heyward coming up it’s Mclouth. The whole concept is fucking ludicrous.
As long as Sea Bass stays out of the 2 spot, I should have enough ibuprofen to last for the season. I’ve seen him batting up there way too much this spring.
Solid post by Moore on Fangraphs about lineup optimization. http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/index.php/be-cautious-with-lineup-analysis-tool/
1/2/4/3/5/6/7/8/9
He doesn’t mention it here, but the reason the three hitter is left off is because they tend to be in the same situations as the 2 hitter but receive less plate appearances.
Using Pinto’s lineup tool and Oliver projections, I get that switching Heyward and McLouth is worth 0.05 runs a game, or 8 runs per year.
That’s about a win, which in itself isn’t enough to get worked up about, given other considerations (L+R, comfort levels, etc.)
What Peter is right to get worked up about is FG’s thinking process, or at least his explanation of it. Heyward is the best candidate for “best hitter on the team.” Batting him 6th because of an erroneous conception of the optimal attributes for the 2d and 6th batter is silly. Give Heyward more at-bats in more important situations.
FG’s other rationale–build McLouth’s confidence–can still be done by batting him 6th. Good gravy. McLouth would have to be the vainest, most sensitive player in the world (and by all accounts he’s not) if he hits significantly worse batting 6th because he doesn’t think his manager believes in him.
I don’t have time to do one of the more accurate lineup simulators (see Ben D’s link).
“Keep in mind that I’ve held back on this subject. What I’ve really wanted to write about this would be NSFW and probably get me arrested or something.”
^ This.
To be honest, I don’t think that scoring runs will be that much of a problem whether Heyward is in the 2nd hole or the 6th. If it comes down to my choice, of course I’d want him to bat 2nd. But hell, Chipper Jones is beating the leather off the ball right now. It really doesn’t matter who hits in front of him, because they’ll most likely score anyway.
CAC,
Totally agree with you on the closer thing. Unless you have a guy who is more dominant versus both lefties/righties, you should go with the best matchup. Ironically, in the case of the Braves, going with both Venters and Kimbrel as matchup closers will also be the more financially saavy scenario for the Braves long term as well. Since arbitration figures for closers are closely tied to saves, holding down those stats for Venters and Kimbrel simultaneously will mute their salaries compared to somebody like Neftali Feliz who was able to rack up 40 saves as a rookie closer.
I am also furious at the proposed lineup of Fredi with McLouth hitting in the 2 hole and Heyward hitting 6th. Even in McLouth’s peek performance, he maxed out at a .356 OBP. Heyward posted a .393 OBP as a rookie, and most agree he has only scratched the surface of his potential. You don’t take at bats away from a guy who gets on base 40% of the time and give them to somebody who only gets on base at best 35% of the time and is more likely to top out around .330 OBP.
Then there is the slugging aspect. In the 2 hole, pitchers would have to pitch to Heyward with Chipper, Uggla and McCann waiting behind him to hit. In the 6 hole, pitchers are going to junk ball Heyward to death, he’ll lead the Braves in walks and intentional walks as pitchers (smartly) decide to take their chances with Freeman or Gonzalez. But if Heyward were allowed to see those pitches to hit, he’s going to do more damage with them than McLouth would.
After what I saw of McLouth last season, I need him to earn the 2 hole against real pitching, not be handed it based on 40 spring training at bats. You can’t steal first base, so the speed aspect carries no weight with me as a justification of having McLouth that high.
Everyone’s a psychologist.
Jon,
Also speed is next to useless at the top of the order because all the power hitters hit next.
…………
If confidence were really the reason to do this, there’s a way to do it without sending your best hitter to the #6 spot. Just hit McLouth leadoff and Prado #6.
(Ben Duronio) “#4 I don’t see this as a Gonzalez prblem but a widespread one. I’ll disagree with him a lot too, but I likely would be regardless of who the manager is.”
@ 7, yeah it definitely is more of a widespread problem. And disagreeing with the manager (and the umpire) is probably my national pastime lol.
Ok Heywood (…thanks BJ) pushers…How about Fredi just using a random lineup generator every night?
I would agree with that the mental aspect will play a part. I think that’s why Fredi was so eager to announce McLouth as the number 2 hitter early, to give him a needed boost and show he has confidence in him. If it isn’t working, there is plenty of time to change it around, which is what I imagine will happen in the first month.
With regards Venters and Kimbrel, I think the Braves have a real chance to use late inning relievers properly due to the lack of ego they will have, being so early in their career. If they understand their role, it will essentially be the same as guys understanding one is the setup man and the other is the closer, just the roles won’t be as cut and dried.
@BenDuronio/7
I think we’re all a little disappointed that the style of management in MLB today has not evolved from neanderthal Big Big League levels.
I mean, did you see how even-keeled that kid stayed even when the 50-year old player was boinking his mom every night?
It depresses me to talk about what the manager might do as opposed to what he should do. I’m terrified that he’ll spend years doing stuff by the Book. It just makes me preemptively bitter.
I don’t care about the confidence boost/psychological bonus/my manager loves me needs of our $7 million center fielder. Heyward batting 6th is asinine.
Best reliever to limit opposition’s ability to score runs is just entirely too logical. One run in the sixth equals one run in the 9th.
Lets solve this logjam the obvious way – just package Lowe, McLouth, and Kimbrel to the Yankees for Brett Gardner.
Is that sarcasm or are we assuming that everyone at Yankee Stadium is both drunk and incompetent?
Sarcasm is how I took it, though I won’t speak for him.
I’ll go back to the closer deal… I sort of agree with what you say, I mean what the big deal about a closer… but then I look at the results. I’ll go as back as 10 years because I’m too lazy to look further back, what’s the common factor of every team in the past 10 years that has won the World Series??? that’s right, a dominant closer… weather it’s Mo, Paps, Lidge, Wilson… invariably there has been a closer on top of his game. Remember we were the one team in last year’s playoffs that had to have a closer by committee when Wagner went down, that didn’t work out to well for us now did it? (Brooksy aside). I think everyone agreed when BC took Kimbrel out to put a lefty to pitch against Huff that was a mistake. Not only Huff had not had a hit against a righty in the playoffs to that point, Kimbrel was dealing! The rest is history, sad, painful history.
Your example was “if the Braves are up 3-1 on Philadelphia with 1 out in the top of the 7th and Jimmy Rollins and Carlos Ruiz are on first and second base, Jonny Venters should be brought in to face Chase Utley, Ryan Howard, Raul Ibanez, et cetera.”… ok, what if a couple of them get hits, leave the bases loaded, then what happens in the 9th if the 3 lefties hit again? we already used Venters in the 7th, we bring O’Flaherty? Sherrill??? conversely, if it’s the 3 righties in a row and you bring Kimbrel in the 7th and a couple of them get on and you have the 3 lefties in a row, do you burn Kimbrel then a there and bring Venters in the 7th or do you let him pitch out of trouble? I think having the set-up and the closer role established is a way of getting away from that “lefty-lefty, righty-righty” thing that managers do with bullpens early in the game. Moylan was great against righties, lefties light him up, Sherrill had certain success last year against lefties (not much), but righties hit like 600 against him… clearly these are not the guys we’re talking about, we’re talking about Venters who was practically unhittable, and Kimbrel who has great stuff. Either one is a great option to pitch the 9th, and in the day one needs a breather the other can close, but if history serves us right a closer is a must. That’s all I have to say about that.
@38 CAC-
I was 95% sure it was sarcastic, too. But I had to be sure. I’ve seen people 100% certain that their Braves-centric hypothetical trades are completely legitimate. Which is always fun.
I do believe Kenny has the right solution. Just package up all our bad contracts and send them to the Yankees…or maybe the Angels. That’ll do ‘em!
@31/Fred-di: We talking about Brendan Haywood? cause he’s a center for the Dallas Mavericks, man. This is a baseball blog, and I think you missed your turn somewhere.
The primary reason I can see for using Kimbrel in the 9th is his wildness. Have a guy on 3rd, does he let one loose and a wild pitch allow a run? If he walks the first two batters he faces with players on 2nd and 3rd, again, we allow a run. With that in mind, I don’t mind using him to start an inning, since if he walks the first 3 and strikes out the next 3, we get out unscathed in the run column. Other than that, I agree with all you say, but I think Kimbrel’s wildness make him better to start an inning than come in with runners already on. Venters doesn’t have that issue, so he’s, in my mind at least, better for a use him when most needed type.
One thing you didn’t really mention is that established relievers tend to throw temper tantrums and/or fake injuries if they’re not getting their saves, because saves get relievers paid.
I’m normally all about using guys by the actual numbers that maximize their effectiveness. Right there with you on the lineup and the #2 v. #6 brouhaha. But in terms of the bullpen, I wonder if there isn’t something to the idea that people work better when their roles are well-defined. I don’t know about y’all, but I do better at work when I know what I’m responsible for and what falls to others. It’s not crazy to think that relievers might, as a group, work the same way. I don’t know how or if you could measure that, but that doesn’t mean it cannot exist.