Braves

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Will James

Yes since half did and half didn't it tends to lead to the conclusion that your theory doesn't hold water. My theory would be proven on a 50-50 split like this which shows zero correlation. Everyone can remember certain times where certain things happen (like how scoring happens sometimes after a man on 1 no out bunt). To test it you have to greatly widen your sample size and trust the percentages.

---

You obviously didn't read what I said. So, 50% HALF of the INDIVIDUAL pitchers before better- that shows that managers have to know their players and what they can do. A manager might have one that can- and he might have one that can't. So, you have to know what you've got and what he can do so you don't get burned.

If you are a manager and you base things off of broad data and favor that over what your individual pitcher can do- you're not going to be managing for long.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dawgs

Come on man, the avg numbers were within statistical variance of each other. Some guys were slightly better, some probably slightly worse. At the end of the day, assuming a closer threw a decent number of non-save innings so that 1 bad outing didn't totally skew the numbers, I'd bet there aren't many closers with a huge difference in numbers.

I hope will James can pull numbers on whether there's a statistical difference between big lead appearances and behind/tied appearances. I'd say I notice more closers giving up runs in big lead situations, not close games.

---

Do you know how many runs are charged in a walk-off situation to a closer? 1-2. The numbers would likely be worse if the game didn't end and the pitcher had to stay out there. And if a closer is getting hit, no manager is going to just leave them out there to rot. Again, as with much of sabermetrics- skewed numbers.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Todd4State

You obviously didn't read what I said. So, 50% HALF of the INDIVIDUAL pitchers before better- that shows that managers have to know their players and what they can do. A manager might have one that can- and he might have one that can't. So, you have to know what you've got and what he can do so you don't get burned.

If you are a manager and you base things off of broad data and favor that over what your individual pitcher can do- you're not going to be managing for long.

---

This is getting crazy. The fact that half were a little better and half a little worse, in a one-year sample of numbers, shows that situation by and large doesn't matter, not that it does. You're reaching there.

And if Fredi knew his pitchers, he should have known that David Carpenter doesn't pitch well in those situations in playoff games, because history shows he doesn't. It wasn't just an evaluation of Kimbrel vs. no Kimbrel. It was Kimbrel vs. Carpenter, and there's no justification for leaving Carpenter in.

Please don't try to use Kenley Jansen in comparison. It's Kenley Jansen; he is in no way, shape, or form Craig Kimbrel. If you think they're similar, you just don't know Kimbrel.

FWIW, there's actually a chance I've seen Kimbrel pitch in more games than Fredi Gonzalez, and I have no reason to think he couldn't handle it, and Kimbrel himself clearly thought he could handle it and wanted it. It clearly didn't make him uncomfortable.

Todd clearly if its 50-50 that means there is no correlation. Overall they will follow the rule. Do you expect anyone to be exactly the same? Of course you can always pick out individual instances but the rule of closers not performing the same in other situations is not factual. Since that is the rule, over time most all will even out.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Will James

Todd clearly if its 50-50 that means there is no correlation. Overall they will follow the rule. Do you expect anyone to be exactly the same? Of course you can always pick out individual instances but the rule of closers not performing the same in other situations is not factual. Since that is the rule, over time most all will even out.

---

Well some people in this thread have suggested that if Mariano Rivera could do it then Kimbrel could do it. I'm the one saying people are different. That study is intended to show that it doesn't matter- which is wrong depending on who the pitcher is.

If you as a manager know your pitcher will perform better in a particular situation, you put them in that situation.

And it still doesn't address what a manager is to do when they use up their closer and all they have left is Mitchell Boggs.

And on top of that, one side has 250 innings vs 500. How do you know BABIP hasn't come into play?**

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by smootness

This is getting crazy. The fact that half were a little better and half a little worse, in a one-year sample of numbers, shows that situation by and large doesn't matter, not that it does. You're reaching there.

And if Fredi knew his pitchers, he should have known that David Carpenter doesn't pitch well in those situations in playoff games, because history shows he doesn't. It wasn't just an evaluation of Kimbrel vs. no Kimbrel. It was Kimbrel vs. Carpenter, and there's no justification for leaving Carpenter in.

Please don't try to use Kenley Jansen in comparison. It's Kenley Jansen; he is in no way, shape, or form Craig Kimbrel. If you think they're similar, you just don't know Kimbrel.

FWIW, there's actually a chance I've seen Kimbrel pitch in more games than Fredi Gonzalez, and I have no reason to think he couldn't handle it, and Kimbrel himself clearly thought he could handle it and wanted it. It clearly didn't make him uncomfortable.

---

Bottom line- get a better set-up man.