Baseball and the use of Closers...
 

Me and a buddy have been going round and round on the current state of the Milwaukee Brewers, and the way Yost uses the bullpen. Take Yesterday for example...The Crew is up 2-1...Yost trots out Turnbow as he always does when we have the lead...He proceeds to walk the first two batters and give up a single...bases loaded nobody out...The game is one the line right here and now...Why not bring in Your closer (Fransisco Cordero 0.43 ERA 18 Saves) right then and there to try and 'save the game'? Instead he brings in Brian Shouse who throws about 75mph and is a complete journeyman we end up losing 9-3. Why do MLB managers only use a closer in the 9th? Half the time they have a 3 run lead and it is basically just to mop-up. To me that is a waste. Any Thoughts?

In what inning was it when Turnbow came in?

He Started the 8th...Gave up two walks and the Single...

Several reasons

1.) Managers won't get blamed (or at least not get as much blame) if he brings in a guy that blows the lead in the 6th or 7th inning. He would get blamed if he brought in Cordero and either he blew the game in that sitation because "he's used to pitching in the 9th" or another guy blew it in the 9th "because he wasn't used to those pressure sitations".

2.) Baseball is very slow to adapt to new ways of thinking. Probably more so than any other major sport.

3.) Proven closers only pitch in the 9th inning.

Ya, I never got that either. A "closer" should be used as the relief "ace", put in the game when it matters most - whether that be 1-run lead in the 9th, or a tie game in the 7th. This is how Francona has been using Papelbon, for the most part.

Putting the closer in with a 3-run lead in the 9th is ridiculous.

These guys need to nut it up once in a while...Sheesh I remember when guys like Goose Gossage and the like pitched 3 inning saves!

Yes, gone are the days your closer came in the 7th inning and shut the other team down for the save. I remember when Gossage would come in in the 7th or 8th and knowing that the Padres had the game won. Yeah, he'd blow it every now and then, but, I don't think any more often than what closers do now and they only pitch in the 9th.

so if they are effective going 3 innings why wouldn't they be starters?

I think I'd want my starter going more than 3 innings.

no kidding. point being is that these type of guys are trained as starting pitchers I would think.

maybe you've found a new niche market for the 3 inning guy. good luck with that.

Relievers used to be of the "3 inning guy" variety. Not unheard of. I'm sure when Smoltz moved back into the bullpen in the early 00's, he could have done 3 innings (or at least after his elbow got strong).

I seem to remember an article - from Bill James probably - who said the optimal time to use your closer is anytime in the last 4 innings when you need the outs the most. In a situation like was just described for the Brewers, it seems like a perfect time for the closer.

Unfortunately, the save statistic has gotten in the way of effective end-game bullpen management.

Statistical Facts prove this is true. The batting averages go up a tremendous amout from the first at bat of the game to the 3rd. I dont have the link handy, when I find it I will edit this and add it.

This is it, basically. I also think there's a legit psychological issue (or at least can be) to losing in the last AB versus blowing the lead in the 6-8th innings. It just comes down to the fact that the closer you are to the end of the game, the higher the expectation you will win if you have the lead. In the 7th inning of a close game, it's still anyone's game, so losing the lead can be forgiveable. Losing in the 9th with someone other than your best reliever is not, to anyone - the team, the fans, the media, etc.

A lot of it is pressure on the manager to do what is expected and to give the best reliever the opportunity to pad his stats - because baseball is about stats, and the save is the most recognizable reliever stat there is.

Because pitchers today are wusses. Guys used to go 2-3 innings on a regular basis if needed because of how important a win might be. Along those same lines, saves meant nothing (and it really doesn't today other than $) so guys could use 3-4 guys all season long with each picking up 8-12 saves.

Its not that relievers can't go 3 innings now (not all, but quite a few could), its more that bullpens pitch a lot more innings now than in the past so you can't send a guy out there for 3 innings and count on him getting 2-3 days of rest. There's much more data available on how to handle starters and that means having them pitch less innings, putting more stress on the bullpen over the course of a season. So we're looking at situations now where a guy may pitch 3-4 times in a given week rather than pitching once or twice for 3 innings or so.

Why do they have to finish games? This is the mindset that won't die. If the best hitters of the opposing team are coming in the 8th, and there's a tie game, why not use your best closer then, and then bring in the "setup" guy to face the weaker hitters in the 9th (by which time you might have a lead)

Yes, he did a statistical simulation (discussed in the revised Historical Baseball Abstract), and found that, even assuming the closers are limited to one or maybe two innings, their most effective use was in the 7th or later inning in tied or one-run games. (He also assumed that they would pitch two innings if they hadn't pitched the prior day and the game remained close, and they would pitch in the 9th inning standard save condition if they hadn't pitched in several days.)

He figured a top closer might get 20 saves and 15 wins, maybe more.

I will have to say LaRussa will pitch Izzy two innings sometimes.. and I love it for him, as I think it allows him to get warm for the 9th. Although I wouldn't bring him in the 8th with men on base.

When I rule the world, the Save stat will be eliminated, along with RBI and any mention of "proven veteran" or "knows how to win".

I think pitchers are babied more now than in the past. I honestly don't think we will ever see another 30 game winner any time soon.

Why would you get rid of RBI's? IMO that is one of the best stats at telling how productive a hitter has been.

No, it isn't. An RBI is a function of opportunity - nothing more. Pedro Feliz had 98 RBI's last year, while basically playing at replacement level. RBI's aren't generally awful in terms of correlation with value, but the populace has bought into the premise so much of "run producers" that they ignore that a guy can't control who is on base when he comes to bat.

Well of course you cant control who is on base. Just like you dont directly control any particular useful stat. We could say wins arent important because the pitcher cant control how many runs his own team scores. We could say runs arent important because the hitters behind him arent the same. We could go as far as to say as Batting Average doesnt mean much because one hitter faced easier pitching over the course of the year. The truth of the matter is that no baseball stat is perfect but you can get a good idea, IMO the top run producers during the year are generally top MVP candidates so I am putting some high importance in the stat of RBI's.

As Crapshoot said, RBI is one of the least telling stats out there. Its entirely dependent on the guys in front of you getting on base.

Feliz is a great example and Francoeur is another. Both were replacement level, at best, last year and they combined to drive in 201 runs.

Batting Average, Saves, Wins (for pitchers), RBI, and Runs Scored are all "fun" stats that carry way too much weight today.

I agree. Let's get rid of the record books and the in-game graphics and just play baseball! Let's not even keep score or season records, that's just more fun numbers. After we feel like we've played enough baseball for the year (remember no games played tracking!), we'll just smack each other's butts and tell the Yankees we're pretty sure they played the best.

Well you would have to eliminate ERA as well because every team doesnt play defense the same way nor do they all play in the same type of park(hitters park vs pitchers park). Like I said no stat is perfect but if you compare top MVP candidates over the year the most constant consistency is the fact that they are among the league leaders in RBI. Obviously producing runs create wins, and athough like you guys say the hitter cant control who is on base, we have to assume that all hitters get their chances to produce runs just some not as much as others.

RBI and Wins are two traditional stats that really don't mean a thing.

This is exactly why there are better stats out there such as OPS+, EQA, VORP, and WARP3.

And yes, ERA is another bad stat, although much better than RBI, Saves, Wins, ect.


MVP and Cy Youngs are determined by the traditional stats, so pointing out that MVP candidates usually are near the top in RBIs doesn't carry much weight. There is no one perfect stat, there are better stats than the ones I listed above, however.



You are correct, producing runs does create wins. However, RBI is not a stats that shows you how good a player is a producing runs. There quite a few stats that are better at showing how productive a player is. The problem is they haven't been in existence for 50+ years like most of the traditional stats and since a lot of them to take ballpark factors and other complex things into consideration they aren't something you can sit at home and count easily.

There's your flaw - we don't have to assume any such thing, especially when we can adjust for it. And yes, we should adjust for park - an ERA of 4.00 in Fenway (AL play) is notably better than a 3.75 in Dodger Stadium (NL play). MVP candidates are based on reporters who don't know (or care to know) any better- doesn't accurately reflect value. Similarly, a groundballer with an ERA of 3.75 with Adam Everett behind him, ceterus paribus, is probably not as good a pitcher as a groundballer with a 3.90 ERA and Derek Jeter behind him. DIPS does a very good job at adjusting for the last factor.

Completely missed the point.

Just having fun. I just hope you guys know BA, R, RBI and the basic boxscore lines aren't going anywhere. These stats are simple, and traditional. My 2 cents.

Great now If you could give me the formula for EQA, VORP, and WARP3 we would be on to something.

I don't expect them to go anywhere and I honestly don't want them to. The real value in them is they are stats that can be easily tracked and counted by any fan. Thats why I called them fun stats.

What does knowing the formula for the stats have to do with using them for some analysis?

Frankly, if I have no ability to easily see the components that go into the stat, do you expect me to take somebody else's word for why it's a better stat to use?

VORP, great, I know what it's supposed to measure, but how do you ever identify flaws with a stat that isn't created for measurement as much as it is created to sell books?

If its creation were truly about finding better ways to evaluate player performance, it would be much more readily available.

That said, I'm not bashing the sabrmetric stats themselves, only the idea that we don't need to know what goes into them to accept them as "better."

Well said, my feeling exactly.

The problem with these stats and the reason why they won't ever be widely excepted is they don't have simple formulas.

EQA is far and away the simplest of the 3 and its not something you can sit and calculate because its pretty difficult for the average person to pull up league difficulty. Baseball Prospectus generally doesn't publish their complete statistical forumula, but they've written many an essay on how they're calculated.


VORP and WARP are difficult to understand. I've read essays on both in baeball prospectus and have a general idea of how they are calculated, which is about all you can do. After getting an idea of how they're calculated the main thing is understanding what the values are (league average, good player, all-star, MVP caliber).

Replacement player is supposed to be your average player called up from AAA. Its calcuated differently by different people, but its basically 80% of league average.

VORP has a nice Wikipedia entry that can give a general idea of how its calculated. The stat itself represents the number of runs a player creates over the replacement player. VORP's flaws are the replacement player is calculated differently by different people, it doesn't factor in defense, and its a counting stat, so it the more productive games you play in a season the higher your VORP is.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VORP

WARP3 represents wins instead of runs. It also takes defense into consideration using the Fielding Runs Above Average stat. Its another counting stat. Unfortunately, it doesn't have a Wikipedia entry and I don't feel like retyping the entire BP entry on it to.

No stat is perfect, every one has its flaws. Thats why its important to look at a range of stats that incorporate different things. IMO, if you take EQA and WARP3, that gives you as wide a range as you can get from any two stats.

I have wondered how productive it would be to go to a 5 or 6 man starting rotation that would essentially take your 5 or 6 best "middle relievers" and run them through the batting order once, for sake of argument let's say that averages 2 1/3 innings per outing. Then you take your five "traditional starters," presumably your most dominating and versatile pitchers and give them the five middle innings. These are the pitchers that are most able to show batters versatile stuff and SHOULD be able to rip through the order twice or two and a half times. Then that sets up the "set-up/closer" role in the remaining 2 innings. The pro's in this scenario is that it would (I think) reduce the ability for middle relievers, generally the weakest pitchers on a roster, to blow leads in the 6th, 7th, 8th and allow the strongest pitchers (starting pitchers) to make more appearances for the same number of innings.
The major drawback is that it would screwup the traditional Wins/Losses columns and cause it to be more muddied on who are better pitchers.

My main reasoning is that I am assuming (perhaps incorrectly) that the majority of runs scored are scored between the 5-7th innings, when traditional starters are wearing down or when weaker middle relievers have taken the field.

Ah, as I write it out it probably wouldn't work. There I go getting ideas and thinking again.

But if you aren't adept at higher level statistics would it make sense to you? I mean they are highly complicated statistics and I'm sure if you saw the formula, you may have no clue how it works, but someone who is skilled in statistics can explain it in layman's terms and give you a general idea of what it measures without having to give you the entire formula.

To compare, it's like not trusting the GDP or CPI calculations done by the US government because you don't see all the components in the formula (perhaps you may see a simplification). You can get explinations of what is measured by those who are more skilled in the area, though.

Exactly. Baseball is the only sport where an ignorance (and I'm not necessarily pointing at Sack here) of new trends and attempts to measure value are considered "traditional". I like baseball even more because of sabremetrics - its fairly indisputable that it adds value.

No it's not, honestly. It's one thing to outright question the validity of a measure because you don't see all the components. But you know what? At the end of the day, GDP and CPI are still how the game is played.

It's another to completely throw away other, possibly inferior measures, and accept somebody else's word that This One Is Better because You Wouldn't Understand.

Saying "Hey, ignore BA, ERA, etc and use THESE measures instead, but we're really not going to let you see the inner workings" isn't a great way to get your stat accepted as mainstream. If you want the average fan to look at EqA, VORP, WARP, etc as measures of a player's superiority or inferiority, it needs to be open. Not everybody will understand it, but they'll probably be more willing to accept something they CAN fool with, if they choose to, than a Trust Us stat.

And again, I'm not calling into question the validity of those stats. I'm simply saying that if the purpose of the stat is to sell books, fine. If the purpose of the stat is to replace blunt measures like RBI, BA, ERA, then you need to put it other there so that people who want to try to understand it can.

Any monkey can divide hits by at-bats to get BA. It may be a grossly imperfect measure, but it's one a fan can reach out and touch. It's why those numbers have endured for a century despite the efforts of Bill James and his cabal to replace them with better measures.

One of the things that got me into baseball as a kid was being able to sit down and figure out the stats of my favorite players. I may not have been capable of grasping VORP right off the bat, but if I sat down and wrestled with it, and started coming to my own understanding of how each part of it works, it would probably mean more to me than somebody saying "Yeah, Bonds had a VORP of 115 back in '02." What does that even mean to a casual fan? It might as well be an arbitrary regurgitation.

Is there any other sport where a major stat can be regurgitated without understanding what exactly it means other than "that boy hit the ball so good, it make your dick hard"?

Put the formula out there. Let people wrestle with it and come to terms with it in their own way instead of assuming that your Ivy League degree means that nobody who isn't willing to buy your book is likely to understand your work. It's the only way it'll ever become mainstream.

Crap, please don't get me wrong. I do appreciate sabrmetrics, and have read almost everything I can get my hands on on the subject. Hell, I even spent a significant portion of two seasons in the DKBL tracking my players with crude approximations of sabrmetric stats because OOTP 6.5 didn't.

Please don't take criticism of the secrecy surrounding the stats as criticism of the stats themselves. I don't have a problem with the stats. I have a problem with being told "These are superior measures, accept them" if I can't even get my hands dirty with them.

QB Rating

Then just stick with OPS. OPS is a pretty good statistical indicator. Even for the layman a HUGE thing that has come out of this is the value of OBP compared to just BA, and I think anyone could understand that. How much you value the derivative statistics is up to you -- and I don't think they're being shoved down our throat by any stretch. There is definitely potential value there, but it's not necessary for the average fan to understand all that to enjoy the game. And if you think it's just about selling books, well, I suspect the people smart enough to figure this stuff out could make a lot more money on their time if they just started working in the business world.

Is it any more arbitrary than the casual fan thinking Juan Pierre is a good hitter because he bats 0.280 with 200 hits every year?

I just don't see this secrecy thing you're talking about. There has been a lot of information made available that shows how all these statistics were derived. Whether or not we can understand it is a different matter, but I just don't see this intentional veil of secrecy shrouded over the sabermetrics of the game.

http://www.csgnetwork.com/quarterbackratecalc.html

Boom. If I didn't know how to calculate that stat before, it would have taken me two seconds to figure out what goes into it.

Now, quick. Show me a place, in the next 60 seconds, where I can get the VORP formula.

QB rating is a stat that is regurgitated by just about every NFL fan and I'm willing to bet maybe 1-2% of the fans know exactly what makes it up.