An Attempt to Reinvent Reliever Statistics
I think now is as good as time as any to drop this theory I've been giving a lot of thought over the last week or so, given the plentiful discussions there have been when it comes to our current relief pitching corps.
Basically, a lot of people are unhappy with the Braves' middle-relief, but the back-end seems acceptable. There are those who are on the side of the fence that guys like Buddy Carlyle, Jeff Bennett, James Parr, and Bad Peter Moylan need to hit the road, and make way for the talent seasoning away in the minors. And then there are others who analyze the situations in which these relievers are used, and realize that perhaps they're really not doing as bad as the scenarios they're dropped into are making them out to look.
Modern statistics available for pitchers don't always help, in my opinion, which is why I'm writing this now - to try and make some hypothetical changes, that might help others see the value in relief pitching as a whole. Naturally, I know that these don't have a snowball's chance in hell of ever taking effect, but in pure theory, it might help shed some light.
Let me reiterate one thing - modern statistics have a bevvy of great information at being able to evaluate a pitcher, but let's be honest here. A lot of people don't look beyond wins/losses, saves, ERA, strikeouts and walks. If more people looked at stuff like splits, WHIP, BB/K ratios, situational pitching, and so forth, there would be a greater understanding of every pitcher's capability from the starter, the closer, to the mop-up man.
The objective of this piece is to try and make some statistics that are very simple to follow, and doesn't intimidate your joe-schmoe baseball fan who doesn't look beyond the box score, while giving some value back to middle-relievers while not also not taking too much away from the important set-up/closing pitchers.
The save statistic was created to give value to the pitcher who finished the last inning (or three) of high-pressure, close-scored games. The role of the closer was born from this. Subsequently, as the times changed, and pitch-counts and situational pitching came into the scene, the hold statistic was created, to give value to those pitchers who bridged the gap between the starting pitcher and to the closer.
Obviously, these statistics became important to those relief pitchers who used such stats as justification for their performance, with aspirations to justify a generous salary from the teams that would employ them.
However, the times have kind of changed again for better or worse, many teams are ditching the role-oriented pitching order for strategic situational pitching, and in some cases, some dire need for a fire to be put out. The Atlanta Braves have been way in the back of the class when it comes to getting this, but throughout the last week, manager Bobby Cox has shown a glimpse of adaptation, by putting in his best reliever for the scenario, even if it meant using closer Mike Gonzalez outside of the 9th inning. The luxury of having a closer-capable reliever in Rafael Soriano makes it very easy to play the righty/lefty splits.
Prior to showing some forward thinking, Bobby Cox was one of the larger victims of old-school thinking of role-oriented pitching, all the way up to the start of even this season. If it drags bad memories, I apologize, I'm sure we all remember the two games against the Phillies in which the Braves coughed up leads of six and seven runs before suffering humiliating defeats. Both of those games were probably winnable if the most-capable pitcher was brought in to put out those fires, even if it meant "burning" Rafael Soriano in the 5th and the 7th innings of both those games.
But he wasn't. Why? Because he's a late-inning pitcher. And he's "not supposed" to come in unless it's late in the game. This is the kind of thinking that has people question their team's manager. But the manager can't be held completely at fault, because many relief pitchers nowadays tend to balk at being used in situations where they can't elevate their personal value by earning holds or saves (Bob Wickman, anyone?).
So, this is my proposal (finally):
|
• First, we're going to eliminate the save stat and the hold stat. This means that gone are the singular statistics for a save and a hold are gone, and in its place are the individual outs accounting for saves and holds. (0.1*3 = 1.0) So no more Bob Wickman saves of getting the final out after Chad Paronto and Macay McBride load the bases with two outs, and this effectively kills off the old school save of relieving the final three innings. SIP criteria: HIP criteria: Rules: |
So if you haven't noticed, saves (SIPs) are now much more difficult to earn, but are no longer limited to just the final inning. An effective fireman performance can now be rewarded with SIPs anywhere in the game, and depending on how the game goes, multiple SIPs can be earned by various pitchers.
Holds (HIPs), by allowing tie-scores, and small (1-2 run) deficits, reflect on a relief pitcher's capability of keeping the game within reach; unless you want to see relief pitchers taking at-bats, it's not in their capability to contribute offensively, but it is completely within their power to sustain a score, or make it worse. I see no sense in not rewarding an effective reliever who keeps the game surmountable, even if the offense can't.
This still allows for role-oriented pitching, because of how awesome they are, Gonzalez and Soriano are going to get the majority of the late innings. But it also allows them to come in emergencies and be rewarded similarly, as well as give other relievers the chance to be rewarded for their contributions. The only ones who do not benefit from this are starting pitchers, and mop-up men.
Likely gone would be the days of 50+ saves, but at the same time, would usher in some value and importance to effective middle-relief.
Just to show you all this theory in effect, I'll re-write the stat book of all of our relief pitchers, through May 14th, 2009.
James Parr
Actual: 0 holds (Total IP - 8.0)
RH theory: 1.0 HIP
Jorge Campillo
Actual: 0 holds, 1 BS (Total IP - 3.1)
RH theory: 1.0 HIP, 1 BS
So I'm sure you noticed the sharp decrease in saves in general, but it puts a lot of importance on holding the game close, which a lot of our relief pitchers have been able to contribute towards somewhat. O'Flaherty is the only reliever not named Soriano or Gonzalez with any semblance of a SIP, with his stop of a Mets scoring threat on Monday night.
As evidenced, the guys most likely to benefit from this kind of system are three of the guys people seemed to want to have their heads on stakes - Bennett, Carlyle, and Bad Moylan. It does not evidence the bad things they've done (or allowed to occur), but it goes to show that a good part of the cumulative innings that each has pitched thus far this season, have been some key ones.
Now, let me disclaim that I know that this theory is FAR, FAR, FAAAARRR from adequate, and I'm sure that there are many of you who hate this idea already, and want to verbally rip it to shreds. I'm sure that there are mistakes, discrepancies and contradictions in the scenarios, too. But I encourage all forms of discussion here, and would love to hear from as many people as possible.
Thanks for reading, if you made it this far!
8 recs |
33 comments
Comments
How long did it take you to come up with this? Does Gondee pay you hourly or are you on salary?
"Ohhhh Shit."-Bobby Cox, 3/28/09
by 10-4 on May 14, 2009 3:04 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
As for critiqueing, i can’t really offer any. This seems interesting, but i’m not overly edumacated in stat discussion. i’m learning, but not ready to jump into stat related arguments.
"Ohhhh Shit."-Bobby Cox, 3/28/09
by 10-4 on May 14, 2009 3:23 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
This is very, very interesting
As you say, it needs some refinement, but it’s pretty good as is. My first thought is, it only shows positive action, i.e., a guy accrued 5 HIPs, but how do you account for negative outcomes? Perhaps Blown Save Innings Pitched or something to that affect? I think you’re trying to illustrate how effective/ineffective a pitcher is, so some variation of the BSIP might work. Anyways, rec’d. Good post.
"…aren’t worthy enough to hold his (Pujols) ass cheeks apart while Playboy models wipe him with thousand dollar bills after he craps out the cure to whatever previously-incurable disease." by royhobbs 1/7/09
by buzzdeadwax on May 14, 2009 3:33 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
I agree…I would like to see some sort of ratio… like so I know how effective the pitcher is in an opportunity. HIPs / P(otential)HIPs… something like that…
"Here comes Bream! Here's the throw to the plate! He is...safe! Braves win! Braves win! Braves win! Braves win!...Braves win!"
by jug on May 14, 2009 3:35 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yeah
I knew it was heavily weighted towards the positives, but that was ultimately my goal, to show that the middle relievers weren’t as abysmal as some think they are.
I’d say integrating Blown Holds or something like that would help reinforce and reveal the negative aspects, because there are few instances where the Braves trail by 1-2 runs, but then the pitcher gives up a blast that puts the game beyond that, thus making it no longer a HIP situation. I guess it’s bad enough that there’s an unofficial stat called “blown-save,” that I don’t think another one would go over too well.
No wonder nobody likes you, Tuttle... everything's a (Pujols) damn debate.
by royhobbs on May 14, 2009 3:44 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I to think it needs to show the negative side cause right now carlyle looks good even though he gave up a Grand Slam.
Is there a way to calculate ERA of runners inherited that scored?
by drumzalicious on May 14, 2009 3:36 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
You're right
Technically, Buddy giving up the slam, despite the runners not being his, should’ve been credited with the BS. I think that’s what I was trying to get at was that despite the fact that hold and save chances were increased, there were more opportunities for them to be blown as well.
No wonder nobody likes you, Tuttle... everything's a (Pujols) damn debate.
by royhobbs on May 14, 2009 3:41 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
A lot of people don’t look beyond wins/losses, saves, ERA, strikeouts and walks.
Wait, these stats aren’t the end all be all of evaluating a relief pitcher?? WHAT THE??

People will come Ray. The one constant through all the years, Ray, has been baseball. America has rolled by like an army of steamrollers. It has been erased like a blackboard, rebuilt and erased again. But baseball has marked the time. This field, this game: it's a part of our past, Ray. It reminds of us of all that once was good and it could be again.
by mvandonsel on May 14, 2009 4:28 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Hmm…gonna have to sit down and read this when I get home.
by Smoltz's Beard on May 14, 2009 4:32 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
you have to look at bubb rubb first!
"Ohhhh Shit."-Bobby Cox, 3/28/09
by 10-4 on May 15, 2009 8:15 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
This kind of system has been needed for a while
It isn’t perfect, but it is relatively functional and very good. However, while it certainly helps guys like Bennett right now, with his WHIP I would guess that he still will end up being revealed as a sub-par reliever.
For all of you who don’t see the merit of this argument, I would suggest you read this:
http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=caple/080805
by Andy Braves Fan on May 14, 2009 4:32 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Concerning Jeff Bennett
.431 BABIP.
That is all.
by Bronn on May 14, 2009 8:42 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
This is a nice column with some good thinking, and the impetus is excellent, since reliever statistics really do need revamping.
Personally, I just don’t think you can get much better than WPA for measuring reliever performance…it looks at all a reliever’s appearances and weights the performance based on the leverage of the situation. Add it all up and you get a pretty accurate representation of whether a reliever is helping you or hurting you.
by tgthree on May 14, 2009 4:39 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Royhobbs
well done! I like it.
like others though, I think there should be some sort of negativity associated with it to demonstrate exactly how effective (or non-effective) these pitchers really are.
Penis
by justincredubil02 on May 14, 2009 4:49 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
FAIL rating, or KOLB rating.
If Dunn walks 30 fewer times, he'll drive in 15 more runs. This is thanks to the scientifically proven formula: RBI = (this is nonsense) (I made it all up).
Here's a stat: Wins as manager: Dusty Baker, 1,162; Bill James, 0.
by TradeAndruw on May 14, 2009 5:03 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Stats
im really indifferent on them. I mean for a while Jeff Benett had a sub 1 ERA, but hes an average pitcher at best. Meanwhile, Jordan Schafer has a .220 average, but NO WAY he gets a hit 1/5 ab’s or so.
But if you look at JJ, his 2.06ERA is very true to how he’s pitched, but his 3-2 record isn’t even close to accurate.
Sometimes stats work, other times you just gotta watch a player play and decide on how good he is (for example, how do you keep stats on fielding besides errors and assists?) I know there’s a formula scouts and agents use to get their guys more money, but besides that, there is a perfect example of how the eye test comes into play and is the only way to judge a player.
"Jason Heyward might be the best offensive prospect i've seen in fifteen years. His game is solid. I would trade any of the current players we have on our 25 man roster for Heyward. He's that good." - NL Scout.
by mvhsbball on May 14, 2009 5:41 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Zone based fielding metrics is how you can rate fielders outside of errors and assists.
The problem with the eye test is that nobody is going to remember how many hits, HRs, K’s, etc. a player accumulates without keeping track of the stats.
by VictorW on May 14, 2009 9:02 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
This was an interesting article, but what I think you’re missing is how important it is for relievers to hold games close, too. Innings pitched in which your team is already losing (but by a close margin) should be factored in here somehow.
That’s why WPA is still probably the most effective way of judging relievers.
by Weldon on May 14, 2009 6:19 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
This is a great point
I think one way to fix this would be to include situations where your team is down by 1-2 runs for hold innings pitched.
by VictorW on May 14, 2009 9:04 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I should read more carefully
• Enter game down by no more than two runs and sustain deficit
by VictorW on May 14, 2009 9:08 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
The RP stat from Baseball Prospectus is superior.
No offense meant, but let me explain why I like Runs Prevented as a way of evaluating relievers. If I was a GM, I would use this as my main qualifier for a position in my pen, peripherals notwithstanding.
RP measures the runs prevented by a reliever when he comes in to the game by using a matrix which determines the average runs a team should score based on any situation given a number of baserunners and a number of outs. The RP stat becomes the difference of the runs expected when the reliever enters the game and the runs expected when he leaves the game. This contemplates innings pitched, inherited runners, and the difficulty of any situation a reliever may see.
For example, if Buddy Carlyle enters the game with the bases loaded and none out and the average team scores 3.2 runs (making that number up) in this situation and he gives up 4, he has -0.8 RP for that inning. Jo-Jo, who left him in that situation might have -2.7 RP for that inning (assuming the average team scores 0.5 runs with none on none out).
0.5 – 3.2 = -2.7
Does this make sense?
A better than average pitcher would have a positive RP and a worse than average pitcher would have a negative one.
by parish on May 14, 2009 8:18 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
I like it.
It’s a good counting stat that shouldn’t be too difficult for the casual baseball fan to understand.
by VictorW on May 14, 2009 9:13 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
That's the point
I agree with the posters above who cite WPA and even RP as superior reliever gauges, but this is meant for the casual baseball fan who only looks at the paper in the morning after watching/listening to the game on television.
Despite all the stats that are brought up here on a regular basis, there are still about 1,000+ more members of TC who just lurk and like the Atlanta Braves and baseball on a more casual basis and just don’t care about the analysis and/or understanding of statistics to a degree as some of many others do.
Instead of just letting them use the previous night’s bad performance as a indication on why Jeff Bennett sucks, I wanted to attempt something that showed that why he’s not the worst pitcher in the world.
I would envision my system to appear in a box score in a way like:
IP/HIP/SIP
5.1/0.0/0.0 – D. Lowe
1.2/1.2/0.0 – B. Carlyle
1.0/1.0/0.0 – R. Soriano
1.0/0.0/1.0 – M. Gonzalez
Basically, it tells the story of Derek Lowe getting into a little trouble in the 6th inning, and Buddy coming in to clean it up, and then preserving another inning on top of it in the 7th. Soriano holds down the 1-run lead 8th, while Gonzalez preserves the 1-run lead through the 9th.
FYI, re-looking at Bennett’s 2009 log, not counting innings, but scenarios, this is how he fared:
11 – HIP situations total
4 – HIP situations with runners on
3 – HIP situations with runners on, in scoring position
4 – HIP situations with runners on, less than two outs AKA a small fire
3 – HIP situations with runners on, in scoring position, less than two outs AKA a bigger fire
2 – HIP situations with runners on blown
2 – HIP situations with no runners blown
So, only in two (out of eleven) instances can it really be said that Jeff Bennett actually sucked, because he had cleanly started innings in HIP scenarios where he let it get worse completely on his own accord. Every other time, he was entrusted with someone else’s mess that hey, getting out of 2/4 50% ain’t half bad.
No wonder nobody likes you, Tuttle... everything's a (Pujols) damn debate.
by royhobbs on May 15, 2009 9:03 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Your ideas are intriguing to me, and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter.
"The future is no place to place your better days." - Dave Matthews ~ RIP Roi
by Chief Noc-A-Homa on May 14, 2009 9:45 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
+1
yeah the other 96 is that I am too good for everyone else.
by Lizziebeth on May 15, 2009 12:02 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
A very wise man said that once.
by Smoltz's Beard on May 15, 2009 8:56 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
one confusing part thoguh
It says that a SIP would be someone closing out any portion of the FINAL inning. How then, could someone get SIPs in the 5th inning? That’s not the final inning.
Please explain.
by traphicg on May 15, 2009 3:04 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Explanation through example
Braves are up on the Phillies 4-1 on the road, top of the 5th, and all of a sudden Jo-Jo Reyes has his trademark conniption against the Phillies, and through a walk, single and another walk, Jo-Jo has now loaded the bases, with one out. Bobby Cox loses his lunch, and quickly give him the hook, and brings in Peter Moylan.
Facing Carlos Ruiz, Moylan induces the ground ball, and the Braves get out of the inning via GIDP. Moylan, for getting two outs, “saving” the score, and has now earned 0.2 SIP. Somewhere in the 6th, 7th, and 8th innings, the Phillies do their usual thing, and homer their way into cutting the lead to 4-3, going into the 9th inning. Imaginary Theoretic Bobby likes turning Shane Victorino around, so he starts the inning with Rafael Soriano who strikes out Victorino. Then, with the impending lefty-hitting Howard and Ibañez coming up, Imaginary Theoretic Bobby lifts Soriano, who has now just earned 0.1 SIP, and puts in Mike Gonzalez who strikes out both Howard and Ibañez to end the game. He earns 0.2 SIP.
Yeah, I know it can be confusing, but it goes to reward relievers with more than a hold for when they truly help the team get out of a bad situation. I’ve been saying it a lot this season, and many others mirror the sentiment, but there are often times where the real save of the game isn’t always earned in the 9th inning. This theoretic system ditches the notion that there is only one save to be had per game, and that saves and holds aren’t so easy to earn – because three relievers pitching a tough 7th inning and each earning a full hold is kind of overly generous, IMO.
No wonder nobody likes you, Tuttle... everything's a (Pujols) damn debate.
by royhobbs on May 15, 2009 3:26 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

by 





















