As the Away Team, Saving Your Closer in Extra-Innings is Stupid
by BenDuronio on Jul 7, 2010 1:04 PM EDT
Email
Print
This was originally posted at my blog, The Bravesologist. It is simply my opinion on the matter and does not represent the opinions of the TC staff.
The Braves won last night 6-3 over the Phillies in 11 innings. Matt Diaz and Eric Hinske put the Braves ahead for good in the top half, and Billy Wagner came in to close the game.
Wagner, the Braves best reliever, was used in a very low-intensity situation. In contrast, Jesse Chavez, the Braves worst reliever, was used in a very high-intensity situation. This is not a wise decision.
The decision to keep your closer (who most teams deem as their best reliever, another terrible decision) out of the game as the away team is a common occurrence amongst Major League teams, and an awful one, in my opinion.
The thought process is that the closer has the most experience in those situations and if the team does get the lead, he has the best chance to keep them ahead. While this is true, it completely leaves out the possibility of not getting there.
Here is my question, what is a more strenuous situation, pitching in a tie or pitching with a lead? In last night’s game, if Chavez gives up a run, the game is over. If he is pitching with the lead and gives up a run, the Braves are still winning at that point. Even if the Phillies score two, the Braves still have the lead, and if they score three the game is tied.
Of course, scoring three runs in extras is rare, but it does occasionally happen. The possibility of it happening is low, but managers seem to disregard it as a possibility completely. The more runs you add on in the top half, the easier it will be for the reliever to finish the game.
Usually, you scratch out one and head to the bottom half. So lets say the roles were reversed and in the top half of the 11th, the Braves scored just one run. Keep in mind that Wagner would have already been in the game.
First off, the option to keep Wagner out in the final inning is still there. This won’t be the case in every one of these situations, but it does indeed happen. Secondly, the question comes up again, what is a more stressful situation, pitching with a one-run lead or in a tie ballgame? If Chavez enters and allows a base runner to score, the Braves still have the opportunity to win the game the following inning. The odds of winning the game had Chavez given up a run in a tie ball-game or with a lead are drastically different.
The notion that closing games is more stressful than pitching in tie games is one of the most common misconceptions in baseball. Obviously, there is more stress on you if you are pitching in a tie. There really isn’t a question, yet nearly every manager in baseball and most who watch it believe the opposite, without ever actually thinking about the alternative situation.
Sure, closing games may have a different feel than pitching the middle innings, but when it comes to close games, putting your best pitchers in late during tie games is the only logical option. The risk of putting a bad reliever in with a lead is much less than putting a bad reliever in during a tie, simple as that.
This FanPost does not express the views or opinions of Talking Chop.
49 comments
|
3 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Agreed here.
But some of that could be managers making sure to get their “closer” the most amount of saves as possible. It’s dumb, archaic, and occasionally jumps up to bite you in the behind.
"Jason Heyward was a Greek philosopher reincarnated as a baseball player." - Don Sutton
I think y
I think what you are missing is that the opposing team is different at bat when they have to score or loose.
You are also missing that Chavez faced the bottom of the order and Wagner had to shut down the top of the order—including Rollins.
And, since he did not know they would score 3 runs, in a one run game, Rollins can be a real distraction on base. What’s more you have to throw more fastballs in this situation, and if you have to throw fastballs you really want Wagner out there…
I think there is way too much over simplifying going on in your argument. It isnt just the tension of a one run game vs the tension of a tie, its also the potential tension of Rollins on base in a one run game and then the need to throw fastballs.
Bobby has shown this year that he is completely willing to throw Wagner in there in the 9th inning during a tied game. But he is doing more than thinking in the simple terms of tied or one run game, he is thinking about matchups, he is thinking about potential base runners, he has a coach to his side telling him that this hitter is bad at hitting this pitch that this pitcher of our throws well and with command, and if Chavez lines up nicely against two batters, he probably gets the inning, especially if the next inning lines up better with another pitcher
by willlinn on Jul 7, 2010 1:49 PM EDT reply actions 1 recs
The thing is
You can put up any situation in the world, and Bobby would still do it the way he did it.
Twitter: @Ben_Duronio
100% Agreed
Couldn’t have said it better myself.
Jason Heyward is the reason that Chuck Norris parks his car in a garage.
Except all the times he's thrown Wagner in the 9th of tie games this year.
Advance apologies if the contents of this sports-based post offended you. I'm just aiming to educate the masses. My law professor says they're asses.
Panthers '010: Save the Richardson family coffers! We'll take the winning if we stumble into it.
by MichaelProcton on Jul 8, 2010 12:03 AM EDT up reply actions
All of these are home games but
http://sports.yahoo.com/mlb/boxscore;ylt=AmRzzlpdooZMII0yTN20neFCLcF?gid=300619115
http://sports.yahoo.com/mlb/boxscore;ylt=ArpvtZ8R4V9wgyz8f39zkeFCLcF?gid=300518115
http://sports.yahoo.com/mlb/boxscore;_ylt=AoT71RbzBGc9a1WA9KruhkeFCLcF?gid=300514115
http://sports.yahoo.com/mlb/boxscore;_ylt=AsEgpIiyUl7Ylyi6GFfiuDSFCLcF?gid=300420115
Exactly
They’re all home games. It’s a completely different situation and managers generally do the right thing at home and pitch their best pitchers before it is too late.
Twitter: @Ben_Duronio
great job pointing out that Chavez faced the bottom of the Philly lineup
Although I’m guessing Bobby would still not have put Wags in there in a non-save situation even though every game versus NL East opponents are going to be big from now on out.
Just my eyes and my opinion, but it seems like closers struggle more often than not in tie games and when trailing. The mind-set just isn’t there for them to pitch in non-lead situation. High level athletic performance is played to a large degree between the ears, closers are not prepared to pitch in a tie game.
Heyward is pretty good
this is a good point
Just last season, you could see the difference in R. Soriano’s performance when in non-save situations.
I think this point is right to a degree...
Closers are worse in non-save situations, but I think that has a lot to do with “getting them work” in blowout games, rather than tied games or games where they’re trying to keep the score close.
Advance apologies if the contents of this sports-based post offended you. I'm just aiming to educate the masses. My law professor says they're asses.
Panthers '010: Save the Richardson family coffers! We'll take the winning if we stumble into it.
by MichaelProcton on Jul 8, 2010 12:05 AM EDT up reply actions
I don't really see it as just Cox though
It’s most managers in the game. Bochy doesn’t really do it, Manuel of the Mets does occasionally, as does Girardi. The concept of it makes no sense. My problem with the “different situation between closing and in a tie game” argument is that it also does not make much sense.
Closers in situations with a 2-run lead will pitch better than they do when the game is tied? They will also pitch better in one-run games than with a four run lead? Those are two very contrasting arguments. Just because the “save” is there, doesn’t mean the stress level is any different.
Twitter: @Ben_Duronio
Also
I forgot to add, that they do often pitch in tie games. At home, they pitch the bottom of the ninth if the game is tied, since they will not have an opportunity to “close” the game.
Twitter: @Ben_Duronio
No, at home they pitch in the top of the 9th if they have the chance to close, otherwise why have “Sandman” entry music for Wagner?
Heyward is pretty good
Whoops, meant to say top of the ninth. But regardless, if the game is tied at home, teams generally bring their closer in. It seriously hurts the argument that a reason to not use Wagner is due it being a non-save situation.
Twitter: @Ben_Duronio
Yes, in many cases, they will.
Advance apologies if the contents of this sports-based post offended you. I'm just aiming to educate the masses. My law professor says they're asses.
Panthers '010: Save the Richardson family coffers! We'll take the winning if we stumble into it.
by MichaelProcton on Jul 8, 2010 12:05 AM EDT up reply actions
Do you still right this blog post if Wagner pitches the 9th and Chavez comes in and blows a 3 run lead in the bottom of the 11th? Then all you have left is everyones favorite scape goat pitch the rest of the game.
or what if the Braves score four or five runs at the top of the inning instead of three.
Then we’ve “wasted” an appearance by Wagner, which may come back to haunt us if he is unavailable in the near future or has too much wear and tear in October. Wagner is a valuable, essential commodity – Chavez is not. You have to factor that mileage, injury risk, etc. in when considering the probability advantage of Wagner preserving a tie over Chavez.
He would not be wasted
He would have extended the game and would have been an important reason why the Braves won. Wagner extends the game more often than Chavez does, and in essence, that means the Braves win more games in that situation if Wagner enters instead of Chavez.
Twitter: @Ben_Duronio
You've got that right!
Washington Tribune, June 29 2010 – "The stonecutters carving Stephen Strasburg’s name onto the Washington Monument have been directed to await further instructions."
Umm...
Didn’t Chavez extend the game? Was he not an important reason why the Braves won?
Advance apologies if the contents of this sports-based post offended you. I'm just aiming to educate the masses. My law professor says they're asses.
Panthers '010: Save the Richardson family coffers! We'll take the winning if we stumble into it.
by MichaelProcton on Jul 8, 2010 12:10 AM EDT up reply actions
Well, I wrote it after the Braves did it the way I feel is incorrect and it worked. So yes, I would have defended Cox’s decision had he done it in reverse. There are numerous potential outcomes and if my proposed way hadn’t worked, it does not mean it was incorrect. I’ve had many discussions about this topic, so the article wasn’t only written because of last night’s game.
Twitter: @Ben_Duronio
by BenDuronio on Jul 7, 2010 3:35 PM EDT via mobile reply actions
I agree completely,
and have written as much on numerous occasions, including last night and after one of the games in the Royals series, in which Ned Yost avoided using Joakim Soria and the Braves won because of it.
This is the single stupidest decision that (more or less) EVERY manager makes. I don’t understand it, and I don’t see any real justification for it. There is no more important situation than a tie game in extra innings—that’s the highest leverage you can have to start an inning. What’s more, in this scenario, one mistake can cause a loss. So why save your best reliever for a lower-leverage situation when one pitch can be the difference? So, so stupid. But I don’t blame Bobby in particular, because he’s just doing it the way everyone else does and always has.
"Yeah, and I have an enchanted jock strap." -- Karl Karlson
a closer usally only pitches one inning…so what is the difference btween a tie game in the ninth and a tie game in teh 10th…nothing…
the reason the Royals didnt use SOria was because they gambled that Tejada could get the outs in a high leverage situation, in the hopes of encountering a situation where Soria would pitch in a higher leverage situation. Lets say you bring in Tejada and he gives up some hits and there are runners on second and third, then you can bring in Soria.
I understand that a tie game is higher leverage than a one run lead situation, if Soria pitches in the ninth of a tie game and does his job and the enemic Royals offense fails to score where do you go now…back to Tejada. At some point you need to trust other relievers to get three outs in an inning without giving up runs.
By using your closer you are trusting that your offense will score the following inning.
WHile i agree with some points on closers…they are overrated in fantasy. getting three outs with a three run lead in the 9th is something every ML pitcher should be able to do, and that using them only in the 9th with a lead is ridiculous. I cant agree on this point… in my eyes you are gonna have to use your other pitchers at some point why not do it in the 9th…it makes more sense to save ur closer and bring him in during the middle of the inning if a high leverage siutation presents itself.
Heyward,Hanson,and Shaffer r ready now!! Why do you think they havent signed the "right handed bat"?
by fatazfoot on Jan 7, 2009 8:59 PM EST
There exists no higher leverage situation than tied in 9th/extras.
The difference between a tie game in the 9th and a tie in the 10th is this: If you don’t use your best pitcher at any given point in a tie game after the 8th inning, you stand a good chance of losing without EVER having used your best pitcher.
Managers do this all the time, though. You’ll see plenty of times that the highest leverage situation in a game comes in the seventh inning, when you have a lead of 1-2 but there’s runners on and no outs. Managers usually bring their designated 7th inning man in that situation, or perhaps a LOOGY, but the game is on the line then and it makes more sense to use your best reliever right then, rather than saving him against the hope that your team is still ahead two innings later.
there is a higher leverage situation than tied in the 9th/extras…the OP states you should put in the closer in the start of the ninth…a higher leverage situation is the ninth of a tied game with runners on base. thats a higher leverage situation. my point is that at some point presumably, you will need to use a lesser reliever (or a non-closer, bc it happens a noncloser is actually a better pitcher than the closer). Unless your team scores. Why automatically put your closer in in the ninth, why not wait until you have to face the heart of the lineup, or until a runners on situation presents itself.
Heyward,Hanson,and Shaffer r ready now!! Why do you think they havent signed the "right handed bat"?
by fatazfoot on Jan 7, 2009 8:59 PM EST
Because by then it is too late
And the chances you have already lost are much greater. The problem, again, is not that they don’t utilize match-ups. If that is the reasoning, it is more rational. Nearly every manager saves his reliever in order to close the game out, not due to lefty/righty or top/bottom of the order match-ups.
Twitter: @Ben_Duronio
Ive said I disagree with traditional bullpen management but i dont think a rule where the closer pitches in the 9th of a tied game makes any more sense than using him in low leverage 3 run deficits situations…
Heyward,Hanson,and Shaffer r ready now!! Why do you think they havent signed the "right handed bat"?
by fatazfoot on Jan 7, 2009 8:59 PM EST
Did KK warm up at all last night
Was just wondering-we haven’t seen him used since hwe went to the bullpen, and I figure he’d have been the next option if the game had run long-we know he’d be good for 3-4 innings at least.
A completely unsubstantiated theory of mine is KK is the super-long relief man.
Lets say someone gets busted up in 3 or 4 innings I could see the policy being “get in there KK and pitch the rest of the game”. This would also allow KK to stay halfway stretched out which would be a blessing if someone gets hurt (with half of the season remaning, someone is bound to miss a start or two).
by DogDaysofSummer on Jul 7, 2010 5:45 PM EDT up reply actions
This doesn't work.
I love folks who think we can just keep swapping Medlen and Kawakami like platoon pitchers, but you can’t keep a guy in the pen stretched out and expect him to contribute as a reliever.
Advance apologies if the contents of this sports-based post offended you. I'm just aiming to educate the masses. My law professor says they're asses.
Panthers '010: Save the Richardson family coffers! We'll take the winning if we stumble into it.
by MichaelProcton on Jul 8, 2010 12:32 AM EDT up reply actions
Wait... we won, right?
Go USA, Braves, BU Terriers, Irish, Caps, Colts, Hoyas, NU Cats, Wizards, DC United, Washington Freedom
BU Hockey: National Champions 1971, 1972, 1978, 1995, 2009
results based evaluations are never appropriate…Its important to make the right decision even if you lose bc of it. a win still trumps all things, but making the right decision is a close second…so this discussion has a lot of merit
Heyward,Hanson,and Shaffer r ready now!! Why do you think they havent signed the "right handed bat"?
by fatazfoot on Jan 7, 2009 8:59 PM EST
If you're losing for the right reasons
you’re probably losing fewer games than you’re winning, based on the fact that you ARE making the right decisions.
wheres the intuition?
there has to be an opportunity for a manager to feel whats going on, know his team, call on them in situations he believes in them…
Bobby Cox is a better baseball manager than I am...
Maybe he saw something about Chavez recently (and the match ups with the lineup) that led him to believe he could put Jesse out there for an inning and not give up a run and save Wags for when we needed him to close the game?
I just can’t believe Bobby is catching this much flak for a decision that worked.
Go USA, Braves, BU Terriers, Irish, Caps, Colts, Hoyas, NU Cats, Wizards, DC United, Washington Freedom
BU Hockey: National Champions 1971, 1972, 1978, 1995, 2009
Righty, Righty, Righty. That’s what the Phils had up for Chavez. Wags LH sidearm pitching style is ideal for righties. In this situation, at the bottom of the lineup its all about the match up.
This is certainly a valid argument and every game scenario will be different. My qualm, as noted, is more with the general acceptance of this being the “right” way to manage a bullpen. Personally, I would take Wagner against three straight righties over Chavez, despite the handedness of the pitcher. Wagner will get more outs in that situation. Regardless, I doubt there would have been anything done differently had there been two left-handers at the bottom of the lineup.
Twitter: @Ben_Duronio
I like the old school way of playing too. Our best against yours, but the fact of the matter is that in Wagner’s 3 blown saves (yep you guessed it) 3 righties taking him deep. E. Renteria in San Fran, Heisley in ATL and Gaby Sanchez last week. I’m for using our Goliath but if Goliath struggles against right-handed Jewish shepherds, I save him.
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanPosts on Talking Chop
Related FanShots on Talking Chop
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
In Association With
Big League Stew - MLB - Yahoo! Sports
- Roy Oswalt doesn’t need to save the Rangers, he only needs to provide insurance and depth
- James Loney: Umpires should call pitches from behind mound — and be robots with replay
- Magglio Ordonez set to retire after 15 seasons
- Barry Bonds thinks it will be ‘very sad’ if he doesn’t get into the Hall on his first try
- Chris Johnson’s glove webbing had a Spidey sense at Coors Field — for one play, at least
