Braves

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Todd4State

So, I guess it would have been better to blow the game in the ninth with the same guys that blew the lead in the 6th, 7th, or 8th? I guess it is more exciting that way because it leads to more walk-off wins. And how do you know in game that you aren't going to have an even higher leverage situation in the 9th? Crystal ball? Base it off of your fans freaking out on a message board?

Not to mention the long term damage of forcing Chapman to get up and get down in the bullpen and throwing meaningless pitches in the pen.

Either way you cut it, the Reds obviously need to get better relief pitchers. That has nothing to do with a manager wanting a guy to get a save.

---

Isn't dusty baker known for destroying pitchers arms

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BoomBoom

This argument really comes down to: should you always save your closer until the 9th? Fredi says yes. And you appear to be defending that view, which surprises me. Remember, part of the vitriol here comes from Fredi's responses. If he'd said he'd only left DC in because Uribe was bunting, It'd be different.

As to CK pitch count, I've never seen him get wild at higher pi5ch counts. In fact, it's normally the opposite, he starts wild then finds the zone. And you can always pitch him in the 8th then pull him if it took too many pitches to get thru the 8th. The point is to give yourself options, and choose the ones that give you the best chance of success, but Fredi doesn't do that. Flow chart Fredi. Keep in mind this is the same manager that ALWAYS pitches everyone in the pen before CK in tie games on the road. He just doesn't get bullpen management, and while this isn't the most egregious example of it he still deserves all the blame and no benefit of the doubt.

---

To be clear- I don't always think that you should bring in your closer to start the 9th no matter what. Please point out where I ever said that. What I DO believe is that you shouldn't put or ask players to do something where they are going to likely fail and then that in turn causes your team to lose. I don't believe Kimbrel could have gone two without significantly losing command. When you watch Kimbrel pitch, how often does he get up to 40-50 pitches? If it was Mariano Rivera in your bullpen- go ahead and bring him in because he CAN be effective in that situation. Jason Motte when he is healthy- I don't think he could get through two innings either. Trevor Rosenthal probably could go two innings if the Cardinals wanted him to. Both closers- different amounts of stamina.

I'm saying all pitchers aren't created equal and you have to trust your coaching staff to know what their abilities are and aren't. And it's not just Fredi's decision- his information is coming largely from their pitching coach and their coaching staff members. The coaches see these players perform in non-game situations like bullpen sessions, as well as game situations like spring training games. They chart all kinds of things from velocity to location. This isn't just haphazard by the book as much as it may appear. And when you have your manager coming out and saying "I would use him for four outs"- that's not by the book and very specific.

I think what the argument comes down to is would you rather bitch about your manager losing making a risky decision or bitch about him making a conservative decision and losing. Apparently the answer is it depends on how you exactly lose at that particular time. Because I highly doubt any Braves fan would say- well, we brought in Kimbrel too soon, but hey! At least it wasn't by the flow chart!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Will James

Higher leverage first off because it was the middle of the order. 9th would have been the bottom. Also much much higher with the leadoff man reaching 2nd base.

---

It was 5, 6, 7 in the order. The Dodgers catcher hit .333 in that series and he was hitting 8th. And you don't think the Dodgers aren't going to pinch hit for their pitcher? On top of that with Puig on second- you don't think Carpenter has a good chance of striking out a guy that basically conceded an 0-2 count to him? As we know in hindsight- Puig got the double- which had things gone according to plan the Braves would have had to face a pinch hitter and then the top of the Dodgers order- including a red hot Carl Crawford.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HereComesTheSpiral

Isn't dusty baker known for destroying pitchers arms

---

LOL. Yes. He is accused- and rightfully so- of ruining Mark Prior and Kerry Wood.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dawg61

The Braves made two huge blunders in signing BJ and Uggla. That's close to 25 million a year they could be spending on pitching with an emphasis on relief pitching. They need to somehow get out of those deals and spend it better. The Braves are not alone in this new battle vs the Dodgers. It's a huge problem for the entire NL. The Dodgers are spending more than the Yankees. No other teams can spend like them because nobody else has gotten a 6 BILLION dollar tv contract recently. This is the one thing I dislike most about the MLB. It's not equal playing fields. The NFL is MUCH better with parody amongst teams because they cap the spending. The NBA is more fair too.

---

the dodgers will win for the next few years, but in a couple of years, they'll look like the yankees right now. they'll have a lot of guys in their mid-30s making way too much money and unless they go for a $300M payroll, won't have the $$ to bring in young guys while simultaneously paying off the old ones. the yankees are about to be bad. real bad. and you can't really sign your way out of sucking through big free agent deals anymore. you want to complement your core guys with smart signings, but there's no way i'd hand a $100+M deal to a guy on the wrong side of 30 in the post-roids era of baseball.

also, the way baseball has changed the contracts and team control for young players evens things out. if you have a strong young core and sign them early through their arbitration years and a few years into their free agency years, you can lock them up for like the 1st decade of their career for a reasonable price (see rays deal with longoria and brewers deal with braun and many other examples). at that point guys are in the 32-34 range and probably at or near the end of their prime years, so be smart and let a team like the dodgers or yankees overpay, and take your compensation pick. or trade them for prospects before they hit the market. baseball has never been more fair for small market teams.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Todd4State

It was 5, 6, 7 in the order.

---

Exactly. After that is 8-PH- Crawford- and a weak Mark Ellis (who has no business in the 2 hole Mattingly) You are almost assured of not seeing HanRam or AGon again. Puig leading off is much more high leverage than the 9th. Puig getting on second and Kimbrel remaining in the pen is criminal managerial practice.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Todd4State

The Dodgers catcher hit .333 in that series.

---

So? He hit .238 this whole year. I trust 115 games over 4.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Todd4State

And you don't think the Dodgers aren't going to pinch hit for their pitcher?

---

Again, so? Puig is leading off. Then Puig is on 2nd.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Todd4State

On top of that with Puig on second- you don't think Carpenter has a good chance of striking out a guy that basically conceded an 0-2 count to him?

---

Not as good of a chance as Kimbrel.

The idea is that Kimbrel can't go more than one? I would ask what is this based on? Just because Flow Chart Fredi hasn't tried it doesn't make it so. He was not allowed to try it this year. Last year his longest outing was 1.1 IP. In that appearance he faced the Rockies and recorded 4 K's. Yes, all outs were K's. That was the only >1 IP occurrence of that season as well.

The problem is how bullpen's are managed by the old-school.

Hindsight is always 20/20. Uribe was supposed to be a free out. The Dodgers wanted him to bunt. The Braves knew he wanted to bunt. They knew he was a free out. Why would you bring in your closer for a free out? You wouldn't. Nobody would. Would you bring in Kimbrel to start the 8th? Not if he's not used to that situation. If Kimbrel fails in that situation Freddi would have sealed his fate with that unconventional move. He had his arms tied.

You're fabricating his loss of command as he pitches more. It just doesn't happen. And you talked about once he passes 25 pitches...he did it about 4 times this year, passing 30 only once. So how often does he throw 40-50 pitches? He doesn't, and likely wouldn't even in 2 full innings.

He is an extremely efficient pitcher. This is a guy who just put together probably the greatest 2-year stretch by a RP in baseball history, and has unarguably had a better start to his career than even Rivera. The greatest strikeout pitcher in baseball history.

This is not a guy who gets out of control from time to time or starts losing it at some point,and if you think that, you just don't see the Braves play. He is a phenomenal pitcher, and he is the guy you have to use when your season is on the line.

You wouldn't defend Cohen if he kept Holder in the bullpen in Omaha because we needed one more out or two before it was the perfect time to bring him in. You wouldn't say, 'He knows his players'. And you know what? We don't have to worry about that, because he wouldn't do it.

The bottom line is, Fredi was totally comfortable using him for 4 outs, but not 6. That is, what, 6 pitches? 10? 2? Completely asinine.

And gentlemen see Kenley Jansen tonight. Mattingly brings in his closer in a non-save situation that he's not comfortable in- walk and then walk-off.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Todd4State

And gentlemen see Kenley Jansen tonight. Mattingly brings in his closer in a non-save situation that he's not comfortable in- walk and then walk-off.

---

The smallest of sample sizes

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by smootness

You're fabricating his loss of command as he pitches more. It just doesn't happen. And you talked about once he passes 25 pitches...he did it about 4 times this year, passing 30 only once. So how often does he throw 40-50 pitches? He doesn't, and likely wouldn't even in 2 full innings.

He is an extremely efficient pitcher. This is a guy who just put together probably the greatest 2-year stretch by a RP in baseball history, and has unarguably had a better start to his career than even Rivera. The greatest strikeout pitcher in baseball history.

This is not a guy who gets out of control from time to time or starts losing it at some point,and if you think that, you just don't see the Braves play. He is a phenomenal pitcher, and he is the guy you have to use when your season is on the line.

You wouldn't defend Cohen if he kept Holder in the bullpen in Omaha because we needed one more out or two before it was the perfect time to bring him in. You wouldn't say, 'He knows his players'. And you know what? We don't have to worry about that, because he wouldn't do it.

The bottom line is, Fredi was totally comfortable using him for 4 outs, but not 6. That is, what, 6 pitches? 10? 2? Completely asinine.

---

College baseball is a different animal than MLB. 162 vs. 56 games. You can use your bullpen much differently- and you also have a totally different skill set of hitters. I expect a closer in college to go two no matter what. And actually- I have defended Cohen before because I know that he knows his players.

How many pitches would Kimbrel have thrown? Most hitters in that situation are going to take two strikes. That's at least three per batter right there. An average inning for a strike out pitcher is probably 15-20 pitches. And I GUARANTEE you that the Dodgers coaches are going to tell their hitters to be patient so that they can work him out of the game.

Again, Kimbrel doesn't get out of control because your manager doesn't ALLOW him to be put in a position to get out of control. You should be thankful. Criticize whatever else you want about him- it's just really hard to criticize that particular move.

And comparing Kimbrel to Rivera? Cart before the horse. Give it about ten years if not more.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Will James

The smallest of sample sizes

---

I see it happen ALL the time to closers. There's a reason it's a small sample size.

Do you really expect MLB managers to make moves that lose them games so that sabermaticians can have a nice sample size to show that it doesn't work?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Will James

Exactly. After that is 8-PH- Crawford- and a weak Mark Ellis (who has no business in the 2 hole Mattingly) You are almost assured of not seeing HanRam or AGon again. Puig leading off is much more high leverage than the 9th. Puig getting on second and Kimbrel remaining in the pen is criminal managerial practice.




So? He hit .238 this whole year. I trust 115 games over 4.



Again, so? Puig is leading off. Then Puig is on 2nd.



Not as good of a chance as Kimbrel.

The idea is that Kimbrel can't go more than one? I would ask what is this based on? Just because Flow Chart Fredi hasn't tried it doesn't make it so. He was not allowed to try it this year. Last year his longest outing was 1.1 IP. In that appearance he faced the Rockies and recorded 4 K's. Yes, all outs were K's. That was the only >1 IP occurrence of that season as well.

The problem is how bullpen's are managed by the old-school.

---

Actually bullpens used to be managed like you are saying- and they stopped because it didn't work as well as the way that they do now. What you are saying is much more old school than what they do in MLB right now. My uncle was a closer in the 70's, and sometimes they would bring him in during the 6th inning. In a game that they were winning by 2-3 runs. The funny thing to me is your data is based off of pitchers performing in their maximum environment- and then you're going to take them out of that and expect them to perform the same? Seriously?

That's like someone coming up with a study on why Bryce Harper and Mike Trout should bat 8th and then people buying into as a good idea.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Todd4State

I see it happen ALL the time to closers.

---

The following stats are combined for all closers this season with 30+ saves

Non Save situation - 239 IP....2.67 ERA.....1.10 WHIP.....11.2 K/9
Save Situations - ...577 IP..... 2.53 ERA....1.06 ERA.......10.3 K/9

Pretty statistically insignificant if you ask me.

8 of the 15 closers (53%) had lower WHIP's in non-save situations
9 of the 15 closers (60%) had lower ERA's in non-save situations
8 of the 15 closers (53% had more K/9 in non-save situations

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/1...ave-situations

For pretty much the entire history of baseball teams going into the 9th with a lead win 95% of the time. Why wait to use your relief ace for this spot, when much higher leverage situations occur in the earlier innings? It's asinine. Cohen gets it for the most part with Holder.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Will James

The following stats are combined for all closers this season with 30+ saves

Non Save situation - 239 IP....2.67 ERA.....1.10 WHIP.....11.2 K/9
Save Situations - ...577 IP..... 2.53 ERA....1.06 ERA.......10.3 K/9

Pretty statistically insignificant if you ask me.

8 of the 15 closers (53%) had lower WHIP's in non-save situations
9 of the 15 closers (60%) had lower ERA's in non-save situations
8 of the 15 closers (53% had more K/9 in non-save situations

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/1...ave-situations

---

So, about half of the 15 closers did better in non-save situations? Seems about right to me- it seems to suggest that some closers can do it and are better at it than others. Which also suggests that not all closers are equal- and you have to know what your pitcher can and can't do. The ones that can should in theory balance out the ones that can't in a broad study.

Edit to add: A non-save situation is a situation where a team has a lead of more than three runs. If you bring in a closer when you have a 5-6 run lead- which usually happens because your closer needs to get in a game and get some work, they normally do well. That would fall in the non-save category as well. What I've noticed is when a team is behind or the game is tied and they are asked to get out of a jam like Jansen tonight- that's when some of them have problems.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Will James

For pretty much the entire history of baseball teams going into the 9th with a lead win 95% of the time. Why wait to use your relief ace for this spot, when much higher leverage situations occur in the earlier innings? It's asinine. Cohen gets it for the most part with Holder.

---

You're confusing the term "closer" for "relief ace". Why does the closer always have to be the relief ace? The closer is simply the guy that gets the final outs of the game. That's why people use the term set-up man, middle reliever etc. What you are saying is about like saying "why not put a shortstop at catcher"? It's simple- because it won't work as well. Why not assign roles to your bullpen based upon what each guy does the best so you can maximize his potential and give your team a better chance at reducing arm wear and tear? It helps with preparation and it helps pitchers mentally prepare better to do their job. And you are saying that's asinine? No- it makes PERFECT sense to anyone that has actually dealt with human beings and pitchers. I'm telling you- I've been around these people before and if you just throw them out there haphazardly they are not going to perform as well. But if you tell one of them- "hey, you're going to pitch the 9th and finish the game out" it makes a BIG difference.

And again- you can not determine what is "higher leverage" until after the game. If your starter gets in trouble in the second inning- do you bring in your closer? You can't simply look at a batting order and determine what's going to happen in any inning based off of that. If the Cardinals did that tonight- they would have in theory used Rosenthal in the third innings tonight- and then missed out on Kelly's three quality innings plus they would not have had Rosenthal for the extra innings tonight- when they actually really needed him.

Cohen does normally use Holder well- he brings him in to finish the game. And he can go longer than most closers in college. But Cohen also almost cost us a sweep to Ole Miss by bringing in Holder in the third inning- and he promptly gave up three runs and got us in a 6-0 hole. Thank God for Adam Frazier and Ben Bracewell and the fact that Ole Miss's bullpen was subpar. This was the SAME Ole Miss team I saw Holder completely embarrass in Pearl. If Ben didn't have the game of his life, who knows who would have closed that game out?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Todd4State

So, about half of the 15 closers did better in non-save situations?

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Todd4State

So, about half of the 15 closers did better in non-save situations? Seems about right to me- it seems to suggest that some closers can do it and are better at it than others. Which also suggests that not all closers are equal- and you have to know what your pitcher can and can't do. The ones that can should in theory balance out the ones that can't in a broad study.

Edit to add: A non-save situation is a situation where a team has a lead of more than three runs. If you bring in a closer when you have a 5-6 run lead- which usually happens because your closer needs to get in a game and get some work, they normally do well. That would fall in the non-save category as well. What I've noticed is when a team is behind or the game is tied and they are asked to get out of a jam like Jansen tonight- that's when some of them have problems.

---

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.

Per Fangraphs. Taking the league as a whole for 2013

High Leverage situation FIP - 3.79
Low Leverage situation FIP - 3.82