2014 Offseason Thread

[sk7326]

What does the common sense have to do with it? hahaha, if you think that the 9th inning is just another inning, why the best reliever in a staff oftenly pitch in that inning and not in the 7th or other one.

 

It is a role - that has been shown clearly. That is, managers have tried to just match up the entire way, and have generally been unable to. Guys like to know when they are going to pitch. Even advanced guys like Maddon, Francona whomever still give the 9th over to a designated pitcher.

 

But you look at really good teams. All four of 2013's LCS participants basically found their closer on the fly. Two of the LCS participants last year did. Now there are some guys who had extraordinary performances (Rivera, Uehara 2013, Kimbrel, Foulke 2004) - the guys who you'd want to come into the 8th inning of a big game is who I'm talking about - but a lot of the times it's just finding a guy and giving him a spin.

[sk7326]

In a BP staff only one or two can close consistently and those that you named were the best relievers at some point in their teams. On the other hand only a few can close consistently through years like Mo and Papelbon... Kimberl is in that direction as well.

 

Most of the aforementioned were getting John Wetteland 1996 saves - swooping in for 3 outs with bases empty while Mariano Rivera did all the real work.

[iortiz]

It is a role - that has been shown clearly. That is, managers have tried to just match up the entire way, and have generally been unable to. Guys like to know when they are going to pitch. Even advanced guys like Maddon, Francona whomever still give the 9th over to a designated pitcher.

 

But you look at really good teams. All four of 2013's LCS participants basically found their closer on the fly. Two of the LCS participants last year did. Now there are some guys who had extraordinary performances (Rivera, Uehara 2013, Kimbrel, Foulke 2004) - the guys who you'd want to come into the 8th inning of a big game is who I'm talking about - but a lot of the times it's just finding a guy and giving him a spin.

Yeah! It is a role that not any realiver can perform well reason why they give the ball to pitchers who are great AND can handle those levels of pressure. Look at 2013 Red Sox. Without Koji, we wouldn't win the WS. Look at NYY, etc.

[sk7326]

Yeah! It is a role that not any realiver can perform well reason why they give the ball to pitchers who are great AND can handle those levels of pressure. Look at 2013 Red Sox. Without Koji, we wouldn't win the WS. Look at NYY, etc.

 

and the Giants won 3 titles with three different closers with much deck chair shuffling throughout. And as dominating as Uehara was, it is hard to separate his role from Tazawa and Breslow (the latter often had much more perilous gigs) - and the Red Sox were the best team in the league from the start of the season.

[iortiz]

and the Giants won 3 titles with three different closers with much deck chair shuffling throughout. And as dominating as Uehara was, it is hard to separate his role from Tazawa and Breslow (the latter often had much more perilous gigs) - and the Red Sox were the best team in the league from the start of the season.

 

Yeah, but those arms proved that could close.

 

Regarding Tazawa and Breslow, yeah... They were great, but they can't close. Didn't they give the ball to Koji a couple of times in the 8th in POs because nobody in the BP could make the job done? ...That's kind of my point. While you can be a good reliever, only a few can handle the pressure in the 9th.

[iortiz]

and the Giants won 3 titles with three different closers with much deck chair shuffling throughout. And as dominating as Uehara was, it is hard to separate his role from Tazawa and Breslow (the latter often had much more perilous gigs) - and the Red Sox were the best team in the league from the start of the season.

 

.... And while they were a great team, without Koji we wouldn't win anything that year.

[a700hitter]

For all the talk in recent years by teams about using their closers in critical parts of game, not necessarily the 9th inning, no team has done that except in very rare instances. Also, cloer by committee never seems to work. Someone either emerges from the pack and becomes the closer or they go outside the organization to get a closer.

[Bellhorn04]

I think it is a little more specific. Crawford changed gigs because the Red Sox gave him a giant pile of money. He came to Boston, and for whatever reason, hated his new job. Not every company is the same in any field, and you can be happy in one place and miserable in another. That can (and does) seep into performance. He made a poor lifestyle choice - and while nobody is weeping for him paywise - one of the downsides of that 7 year hitch is that HE was stuck there too. (until the trade fell from the sky)

 

I think that stands outside of whether he can come through in a big spot.

 

With your belief that 'being miserable' seeps into performance, we are at least in full agreement on the point that state of mind factors can have a major impact on how a guy plays.

[iortiz]

For all the talk in recent years by teams about using their closers in critical parts of game, not necessarily the 9th inning, no team has done that except in very rare instances. Also, cloer by committee never seems to work. Someone either emerges from the pack and becomes the closer or they go outside the organization to get a closer.

.... Because it is not enough to be good, but handle the pressure as well.

[User Name]

and the Giants won 3 titles with three different closers with much deck chair shuffling throughout. And as dominating as Uehara was, it is hard to separate his role from Tazawa and Breslow (the latter often had much more perilous gigs) - and the Red Sox were the best team in the league from the start of the season.

 

Stop using common sense damn you!

[a700hitter]

With your belief that 'being miserable' seeps into performance, we are at least in full agreement on the point that state of mind factors can have a major impact on how a guy plays.

"Ninety percent of the game is half mental"

-- Yogi Berra

[Palodios]

and the Giants won 3 titles with three different closers with much deck chair shuffling throughout. And as dominating as Uehara was, it is hard to separate his role from Tazawa and Breslow (the latter often had much more perilous gigs) - and the Red Sox were the best team in the league from the start of the season.

 

Workman had a 0.00 ERA over 8.2 innings in the 2013 postseason. That bullpen had many heroes.

[iortiz]

"Ninety percent of the game is half mental"

-- Yogi Berra

 

And it magnifies even more in the 9th and when it is a close game.

[sk7326]

For all the talk in recent years by teams about using their closers in critical parts of game, not necessarily the 9th inning, no team has done that except in very rare instances. Also, cloer by committee never seems to work. Someone either emerges from the pack and becomes the closer or they go outside the organization to get a closer.

 

I think there are issues of long term bullpen usage which precludes teams from using closers more liberally. Certainly a lot of what Farrell does is monitoring Koji's odometer. Guys like to know when they're gonna pitch it seems - the committee approach is tough. Grady when he tried it did not seem to know what he was doing. But some managers are ok with not letting the regular guy go the 9th every single time too.

[sk7326]

With your belief that 'being miserable' seeps into performance, we are at least in full agreement on the point that state of mind factors can have a major impact on how a guy plays.

 

Oh I never disputed that - just the idea that things like RISP, 7th inning and on, or whatever is proof of anything. It just strikes me that while I'd like to have Ortiz up with the game on the line, I'd also like to have him up when it isn't.

[iortiz]

I think there are issues of long term bullpen usage which precludes teams from using more liberally. Certainly a lot of what Farrell does is monitoring Koji's odometer. Guys like to know when they're gonna pitch it seems - the committee approach is tough. Grady when he tried it did not seem to know what he was doing. But some managers are ok with not letting the regular guy go the 9th every single time too.

 

Wonder which teams are going to go like this, this year. I think that most of the teams have a name for that role (closer) and until those names do not s***, they'll be stick there.

[sk7326]

Wonder which teams are going to go like this, this year. I think that most of the teams have a name for that role (closer) and until those names do not s***, they'll be stick there.

 

Baltimore for one, where Tommy Hunter had 11 saves and Britton had 37.

Cleveland had a couple of guys with double digit saves

 

The Cards had a closer who handled most of their saves - Trevor Rosenthal - he was also not very good (1.41 WHIP, eek)

Joe Nathan is another proven closer who had 35 saves, and was terrible (1.53 WHIP, eek)

 

Granted the former two teams have good managers and the latter not so much. (at least in terms of this sort of stuff)

 

Put another way - I did not see Mark Melancon's ability to be tough and strong during his tour here.

[iortiz]

Baltimore for one, where Tommy Hunter had 11 saves and Britton had 37.

Cleveland had a couple of guys with double digit saves

 

The Cards had a closer who handled most of their saves - Trevor Rosenthal - he was also not very good (1.41 WHIP, eek)

Joe Nathan is another proven closer who had 35 saves, and was terrible (1.53 WHIP, eek)

 

Granted the former two teams have good managers and the latter not so much. (at least in terms of this sort of stuff)

 

Put another way - I did not see Mark Melancon's ability to be tough and strong during his tour here.

Still I see Rosenthal and Nathan stick at the position until they s*** the bed. I do not see them sharing the position if they bounce back.

 

But again, even conceding that there are only a handful of teams which will alternate the spot with different players from the beginning.

Edited March 3, 2015 by iortiz

[Palodios]

Many of the all time great teams have a top notch reliever. I am just looking at the last World Series teams... Rivera, Papelbon, Koji, Wilson, even the underappreciated Sergio Romo. The 2008 had a great season from Brad Lidge. Motte had a good season in there too.

 

Look at the Tigers -- they've had the best hitter in baseball and a pile of Cy Youngs but can't seem to win a title because of bullpen problems. Sure there are a handful like the awful Isringhausen for the 2006 Cardinals, but there is definitely merit to having a shutdown guy at the end of the game. This time next year, we'll be talking about Koji's historical 2015 season.

[User Name]

Koji's a perfect example of how any really good reliever can close, not the other way around. There have been some championship teams where the best reliever isn't even the closer.

[iortiz]

Many of the all time great teams have a top notch reliever. I am just looking at the last World Series teams... Rivera, Papelbon, Koji, Wilson, even the underappreciated Sergio Romo. The 2008 had a great season from Brad Lidge. Motte had a good season in there too.

 

Look at the Tigers -- they've had the best hitter in baseball and a pile of Cy Youngs but can't seem to win a title because of bullpen problems. Sure there are a handful like the awful Isringhausen for the 2006 Cardinals, but there is definitely merit to having a shutdown guy at the end of the game. This time next year, we'll be talking about Koji's historical 2015 season.

 

Yup, no one aside Koji could close in 2013 .. And some of them (2013 BP) performed very well that year in their roles.

[mvp 78]

Woooooooosh

[Kimmi]

So Kimmi, if there is no proof, there is also no disproof, and can we really make positive assertions like 'Those players who we often consider to be clutch aren't really clutch.'?

 

 

Yes, we can make statements like the above. The numbers back those assertions up. A player that we often consider clutch isn't performing any better in those clutch situations than he would in a typical at bat. He is simply performing as he normally does.

[Kimmi]

I would definitely use stats, Kimmi, to help me guage what kind of player I'm getting. They provide a general expectation of performance. I don't see why there's so much controversy here. American culture tends to pidgeon-hole people and paint viewpoints into extremes. Stats are useful, but they aren't bouncing in my head as the moment happens. Every moment is unique and has the potential to defy historical samples. We play and watch sports because the outcome is unknown and every moment, although colored with probability, is ultimately uncertain. The moment is below the Planck level and defies understanding. It simply is.

 

 

Stats are not bouncing in my head when I'm watching a game either. Well, not usually. When I'm watching a game, the emotional side of me takes over. I'm a fan just like anyone else.

[Kimmi]

Well it depends on how you frame the problem. The analysis that has been done on "clutch" trying to isolate those situations (close and late, base runners, down a run) all have resulted in no satisfactory answers. You just get good hitters being good hitters. You also get to the conceptual problem - for instance Ortiz hit one of the most clutch home runs in recent history in 2013. He also had a very bad series in general - considering the Sox lost 2 games, there were a myriad of important at bats he did not deliver. Did the clutchiness go away?

 

Now, just thinking about it, I'd expect anti-clutchness to be more measurable - but there has not been a unified definition of what is a clutch situation. Kimmi is right though. Large issues of makeup keep guys out of the show.

 

I love you.

 

That is all.

[Bellhorn04]

Yes, we can make statements like the above. The numbers back those assertions up. A player that we often consider clutch isn't performing any better in those clutch situations than he would in a typical at bat. He is simply performing as he normally does.

 

Are postseason numbers included in these analyses?

[Kimmi]

Are postseason numbers included in these analyses?

 

Yes, they do. And I know where you're going with this. Have I told you how you can be so annoying with your logic sometimes?

 

The studies that I reference use many years of data and many players worth of data to make the sample sizes significant. Clutch, or lack thereof, is not a repeatable skill.

[a700hitter]

Yes, they do. And I know where you're going with this. Have I told you how you can be so annoying with your logic sometimes?

 

The studies that I reference use many years of data and many players worth of data to make the sample sizes significant. Clutch, or lack thereof, is not a repeatable skill.

Neither is mood or emotion.

[Bellhorn04]

I think a lot of David Ortiz's numbers do bear out that he's been a clutch hitter over his career. Starting with his career postseason OPS of .962, which is higher than his regular season OPS of .926. That's not a big difference, obviously. But when you take into account the higher leverage of the games, and the higher overall caliber of the opposing pitching, I think I could come up with a formula that makes the difference a lot bigger.

 

Then you have his absurd World Series line of 455/576/795 = 1.372 OPS.

[a700hitter]

I think a lot of David Ortiz's numbers do bear out that he's been a clutch hitter over his career. Starting with his career postseason OPS of .962, which is higher than his regular season OPS of .926. That's not a big difference, obviously. But when you take into account the higher leverage of the games, and the higher overall caliber of the opposing pitching, I think I could come up with a formula that makes the difference a lot bigger.

 

Then you have his absurd World Series line of 455/576/795 = 1.372 OPS.

John Henry did give Ortiz a plaque calling him the greatest clutch hitter in Red Sox history, and isn't his baseball judgment above the questioning of us internet geeks?