Eight is More than Enough

[batmagadanleadoff]

The Save Ruined Relief Pitching. The Goose Egg Can Fix It.

By Nate Silver

Filed under MLB

Published Apr. 17, 2017


https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/goose-egg-new-save-stat-relief-pitchers/

Intro:

Hall of Fame relief pitcher Richard “Goose” Gossage isn’t the biggest fan of the “Moneyball” revolution. Here at FiveThirtyEight, we don’t think his expletive-laced tirades about nerds ruining baseball have always found their target the way his fastballs once did. But on one point, he’s absolutely right: The save is a stupid [bleep]ing statistic. Gossage recently lashed out against modern closers — including all-time saves leader Mariano Rivera — arguing that they aren’t used in the right situations and that cheaply earned saves exaggerate closers’ value compared to the pitchers of his day. “I would like to see these guys come into more jams, into tighter situations and finish the game. … In the seventh, eighth or ninth innings. I don’t think they’re utilizing these guys to the maximum efficiency and benefit to your ballclub,” Gossage said. “This is not a knock against Mo [Rivera],” he continued later.1 “[but] I’d like to know how many of Mo’s saves are of one inning with a three-run lead. If everybody in that [bleep]ing bullpen can’t save a three-run lead for one inning, they shouldn’t even be in the big leagues.” Gossage is right about pretty much all of that. A pitcher probably shouldn’t get much credit for handling just the final inning when his team has a three-run lead. Moreover, the top relief pitchers today are less valuable than they were in Gossage’s heyday in the 1970s and ’80s. In large part, that’s because managers are trying to maximize the number of saves for their closer, as opposed to the number of wins for their team. They’re managing to a stat and playing worse baseball as a result.

[Edgy MD]

Ceetar wrote: You've claimed it's a scandal that the Mets aren't pitching their starters deep into games,

Yes I did.

Ceetar wrote: but say you don't want them pitching to the best guy in the 7th.

No, I didn't.

Ceetar wrote: But you also don't want the Mets to stock their bullpen full at the expense of a bench guy, so you could see how it's unclear.

Once you start making stuff up that I didn't write, yes, I see how the clarity fails.

Please don't do that. It's better for you, for me, and society.

[Benjamin Grimm]

In large part, that’s because managers are trying to maximize the number of saves for their closer, as opposed to the number of wins for their team. They’re managing to a stat and playing worse baseball as a result.

This has been my beef for years now. If I'm ever a GM in position to hire a manager, one of the things I'll look for is a guy with the guts to challenge this orthodoxy.

[Edgy MD]

Me three.

[Edgy MD]

Rafael Montero, in a high-leverage situation.

[Guest LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr]

Benjamin Grimm wrote: In large part, that’s because managers are trying to maximize the number of saves for their closer, as opposed to the number of wins for their team. They’re managing to a stat and playing worse baseball as a result. This has been my beef for years now. If I'm ever a GM in position to hire a manager, one of the things I'll look for is a guy with the guts to challenge this orthodoxy.

Maddon. Francona. Ausmus. God help me, Girardi. There are a few.

[Centerfield]

Can I take a crack at summarizing the arguments?

Edgy: Thinks the Mets should let their starting pitchers pitch deeper into games. Starters are the best pitchers. Give them more innings.

Ceetar: Disagrees. Says that the best relievers should be used in late-inning high leverage situations. Mets relievers are more effective the first time around than starters on their third time around.

Edgy: Counters by saying sometimes the best pitcher to pitch the high leverage seventh inning is your starting pitcher. Even if at a high pitch count.

Ceetar: Seems to be disagreeing? Saying it's always the reliever? This is where I start to get muddy.


CF: I really have no idea. I guess for me it depends on the starter. I let Syndegaard or deGrom go, I guess, if they have looked good that night. I probably pull Gsellman/Harvey. Definitely pull Wheeler.

I definitely see pluses and minuses on both sides. Edgy's way, the starters get taxed. Perhaps lose effectiveness in the long run. But you have a deeper bench, and save reliever innings. Maybe Montero doesn't have to pitch last night . Or isn't even here at all. Ceetar's way, the relievers get taxed. But our starters, our most valuable pitchers, stay fresh.

I don't know. It's certainly not easy.

[Ceetar]

Centerfield wrote: I definitely see pluses and minuses on both sides. Edgy's way, the starters get taxed. Perhaps lose effectiveness in the long run. But you have a deeper bench, and save reliever innings. Maybe Montero doesn't have to pitch last night . Or isn't even here at all. Ceetar's way, the relievers get taxed. But our starters, our most valuable pitchers, stay fresh. I don't know. It's certainly not easy.

I'd rather burn out relievers who are often flighty year to year anyway and maintain health or energy for starters or whatever. Play matchups, certainly. Make exceptions for Thor, best pitchers.

But bullpens need to be deeper in general. They're not a ranking of the best to worst pitchers, and relievers are no longer just rejected starters. They might not actually be worse than the starter and actually they're better on average, as per opposing OPS and such. Seasons are made on the bullpen. Championships are won.

The extra pinch hitter? not so much.

[Benjamin Grimm]

The way I look at it, if you use five pitchers in a game instead of two, you have three more guys who might potentially be having a bad day. And that one bad inning that you get from that pitcher could cost you the game. If a pitcher is doing well, and hasn't thrown too many pitches, keep him in. Ride him as long as you can.

[Centerfield]

Yes, but going to the same relievers every night, relatively early, leads to them getting gassed. And then it has immediate effects.

One could say that the whole Miami series was messed up by over-used relievers.

And the last guy on the bench argument can't be dismissed by four AB's. Countless times a lefty-righty matchup is not exploited because we are running out of guys.

Look, I'm not disagreeing with you. I just don't think it's as one-sided as you are proposing.

[seawolf17]

Benjamin Grimm wrote: I recall "We want a pitcher, not a belly-itcher."

Ah, the good old days, when we had both.

[Edgy MD]

I don't think it's particularly taxing to have a starter pitch into the seventh if he's doing well. The eighth? It's been known to happen. Does it increase the risk of injury. Sure. It's generally a marginal, but it's a real one and pitches accumulate. But eventually you have to accept that prevention that causes you to regularly lose winnable games is not worth it. And in the end, having good relievers pitch four or five days a week instead of two or three is also taxing and increases injury risk too. Maybe moreso. Less recovery time and whatnot. And lesser pitchers end up in high-leverage situations. They just do. Over and over. Last night and the night before and the night before that.

Benjamin Grimm wrote: The way I look at it, if you use five pitchers in a game instead of two, you have three more guys who might potentially be having a bad day. And that one bad inning that you get from that pitcher could cost you the game. If a pitcher is doing well, and hasn't thrown too many pitches, keep him in. Ride him as long as you can.

It seems a simple principle. If you lift someone who is succeeding, you continually place another priority ahead of succeeding. Eventually, and with increasingly regularity, you will fail.

[Ceetar]

Centerfield wrote: Yes, but going to the same relievers every night, relatively early, leads to them getting gassed. And then it has immediate effects. One could say that the whole Miami series was messed up by over-used relievers. And the last guy on the bench argument can't be dismissed by four AB's. Countless times a lefty-righty matchup is not exploited because we are running out of guys. Look, I'm not disagreeing with you. I just don't think it's as one-sided as you are proposing.

oh, definitely, the gassing is a concern, but it strengthens my point I think. You need MORE relievers you can trust. And maybe after a long game is when you push the starter more, though granted it's early and April and maybe not as wise as doing that in June.

Maybe it's not that as one-sided as I think, but you gotta have quality platoon guys for that and it's rare too. But our lineup is lefty-heavy perhaps. we've got one of each on the bench for the OF and a righty (or switch if it's Reyes on the bench) IFer. Plus Rene Rivera I guess. I don't think we're losing the matchup battle that much. I mean, we're mostly talking about TJ Rivera here, and he's a rightly and so is Lagares and Flores so it's not like that'd be resolved if he was here instead of the worst Sewall/Gilmartin/Montero.

Benjamin Grimm wrote: The way I look at it, if you use five pitchers in a game instead of two, you have three more guys who might potentially be having a bad day. And that one bad inning that you get from that pitcher could cost you the game. If a pitcher is doing well, and hasn't thrown too many pitches, keep him in. Ride him as long as you can.

Maybe, but there's really no good way to know if the 'next' inning from the pitcher you keep in is going to be the bad one over a fresh one from a reliever. And the data suggests a reliever first time through the order is better than a starter the third time through. (and relievers a second time are terrible) Sure, it's a balancing act.

[Frayed Knot]

When Duda got on as the winning run in bottom 9 last night w/one out there was essentially no one to PR for him -- Lagares & Granderson had already been used, leaving just Wilmer and R. Rivera.
That's an example of a by-product of a shorter bench.

[Ceetar]

Frayed Knot wrote: When Duda got on as the winning run in bottom 9 last night w/one out there was essentially no one to PR for him -- Lagares & Granderson had already been used, leaving just Wilmer and R. Rivera. That's an example of a by-product of a shorter bench.

Modern rosters rarely have room for a speed guy. Duda's not _that_ slow either, but you could always use deGrom. I don't think I'd try to steal with just 1 out, but sure, it's another small tick in favor of 5 men on the bench. A very small tick though, because you've just removed probably your second best hitter in favor of a Quad-A type guy if they _don't_ score there.

[Frayed Knot]

The point is that options are removed when benches get smaller, options which go beyond just platoon-type issues of whether X should pinch-hit for Y
Maybe you try a steal there with a faster runner, maybe you don't. I DO know that I would have liked to have a pr if Duda got to 2nd somehow but the only two benchies left were even slower.


And I'll add that I don't think there's a Right/Wrong answer to how the player mix should go, but I'd like it better if teams weren't forced into feeling that they had to carry so many pitchers.
Nor am I in favor of added rules that would dictate/limit how many of each you can have because, like defensive shifts, there's a risk and reward to each side and teams should be able to play them on whichever
side of the line they choose and live with the results.

[seawolf17]

When Duda got on as the winning run in bottom 9 last night w/one out there was essentially no one to PR for him -- Lagares & Granderson had already been used, leaving just Wilmer and R. Rivera. That's an example of a by-product of a shorter bench. Modern rosters rarely have room for a speed guy. Duda's not _that_ slow either, but you could always use deGrom. I don't think I'd try to steal with just 1 out, but sure, it's another small tick in favor of 5 men on the bench. A very small tick though, because you've just removed probably your second best hitter in favor of a Quad-A type guy if they _don't_ score there.

I get your point, but when deGrom pulls a hammy sliding into second, Terry Collins gets run out of town on a rail.

To FK's point, it definitely feels like there's pressure there to carry extra bullpen specialists, when the way the game is played - I think - should dictate a slightly different balance. Not that you're going to put Thor in to strike out a guy in a key spot on his throw day, but I suppose technically, you could.

There have been managers who have tried to buck the trend. Grady Little and the Red Sox tried it in 2003: http://www.espn.com/mlb/columns/story?id=1489225

They had ten different pitchers earn a save that season, lead by Byung-Hyun Kim, who they acquired two months into the season and he saved 16 games. They also won 95 games that year, but a lot of that was their offense, which was incredible.

[Edgy MD]

I agree. Let's focus on building an incredible offense.

[Ceetar]

The crux of it all though, if you can't muster someone better than Montero has pitched, might as well be TJ Rivera.

Maybe he can do both. THAT seems to be at least entering the mindset of teams.

http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/b/bethach01.shtml

http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/l/lorenmi01.shtml

[ashie62]

The paradigm of pitch counts and strict role specialization in the bullpen is likely here to stay.

Score more runs.

[Edgy MD]

Oh, I don't think anything is here to stay, especially if it's shown to be demonstrably counterproductive.

[Edgy MD]

If Duda is truly unavailable, and there's no transaction by gametime, the Mets go to town tonight with a ridiculously short bench of d'Arnaud, Flores, and Lagares. Go class of 13! right?

And hey, if d'Arnaud is unavailable, we may be working with two benchies.

We may see Gsellman at first or something similarly silly tonight.