A rant against baseball's use of relievers

by Travis G on Jul 25, 2009 8:17 PM EDT in New York Yankees Analysis

We saw it again today: a manager brought in his third or fourth best reliever with the game on the line.

It was a tie game in the seventh inning, the A's had the bases loaded with one out, Phil Hughes and Mariano Rivera were rested, and Joe Girardi brought in Al Aceves. Now I like Aceves - he's good pitcher, but that was a big mistake. Not only did Aceves fail to get out of the inning unscathed, but proceeded to kill any chance the Yanks had of coming back.

Oakland won the game today with one big inning... one. If they were merely held in check by scoring only (let's say) three runs there, the Yankees win the game. Instead, Aceves gave up three hits and six runs while recording just one out.

Sitting there in bullpen were the team's top two relievers. On top of that, they were rested: Hughes hadn't pitched in 48 hours, and Rivera in 72.

All this BS about the '7th Inning Guy', the '8th Inning Guy', the 'Bridge', even 'The Closer' has to stop. The game was going to take a major swing in that seventh inning, yet the manager went with his third (at best) option.

Baseball Prospectus puts it succintly:

Despite the statistic's name, saves are not necessarily awarded to the reliever who contributes to his team when it needs the most help, but rather to the reliever who finishes the game with a small lead. The statistic's influence has resulted in managers sometimes using their best relievers in accordance to the rules governing saves, rather than the rules governing common sense.

In an assist to the CYC, Bill James states conclusively that:

The modern usage pattern of a relief ace - the Robb Nen pattern, using relievers in one-inning 'save' situations - is clearly and absolutely not the optimal usage pattern.

The relief aces of [1963-1978] were about 50% more valuable than modern relief aces, mostly because they pitched more innings, but also because the runs that they saved had more impact... than those of modern relief aces.

Why was the value of a run saved higher in [that] era than it is now? Essentially, because

a) the situation in which a run saved has the greatest impact is when the game is tied (in the late innings), and

b) because the relief aces of that era were used most often when the game was tied.

When a relief ace was called in to pitch one inning in a tie game, the winning percentage of his team was .574. When he wasn't called in to pitch that inning, of course, it was very near to .500.

Each run saved in a tie game has more than eight times the impact of a run saved with a three-run lead. If you use your relief ace to save a three-run lead in the ninth inning, you'll win that game 99% of the time. If you don't use your relief ace in that situation, you'll [still] win 98% of the time.

The conclusion of this study is very clear. There are two situations in which the use of a relief ace is particularly helpful: when the teams are tied, and when the team is ahead by one run.

Modern relievers are used to pitch the ninth inning with a three-run lead... an average team would win 97% of those games if they brought in Bryan Rekar [career: 25-49, 5.62 ERA] in that situation.

(bold emphasis my own)

He then concludes with his three optimal uses for the 'relief ace':

two innings a game when the game is tied,

two innings a game when you have a one run lead,

one inning at a time in other games when the game is close at the end and the relief ace [is rested].

So why do managers continue to 'save' (no pun intended) their best relievers for save situations? Unfortunately, it seemingly has a lot to do with money and ego. 'Saves' have garnered a certain amount of prestige, and make a lot of money for guys like K-Rod who, despite setting a single-season saves record, was far from the best reliever last year. He turned that season into a $37 million contract. If I was a reliever, I'd want those saves too. But the manager is there to win, not to inflate players' egos... or is he?

Tweet Comment 25 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

Girardi made a stupid move with the pen...big surprise?

Seriously, with one out and man on, hughes would have been a much better option. He can go 2 innings. Plus we all know hughes has strike out stuff, which was exactly that was needed in this situation. Yes Ace has been good, but remember what happen when we brought him in against the sox for CC? i see ace as a guy for the 7th or so, but not someone to use for tough jams late in the game. heh i guess Girardi doesn’t

by lololol on Jul 25, 2009 8:29 PM EDT reply actions

I agree.. I felt hughes shoulvde came in hands down .. why he didn’t IDK.. if my memory serves me right Ace came into the game to relieve CC (at fenway) and the the same thing happened, he gave up a two run lead. But I like ace he’s one of the best in the pen. I just feel like hughes was the obvious choice.

by Yankz09 on Jul 25, 2009 8:51 PM EDT via mobile up reply actions

and if Hughes comes in and gets shelled?

id say he’s due, kinda like Ace was.

by FreeBradshaw on Jul 25, 2009 9:14 PM EDT up reply actions

if he brought in Hughes or Mo

and they get shelled, i can live with it. we went with our best guy(s) and they didn’t have it. it was bound to happen. but to lose with our third or fourth best guy isn’t so easy to stand. hughes/mo have a better chance to escape that jam unscathed than Aceves.

by Travis G on Jul 26, 2009 12:25 AM EDT up reply actions

its worked before

this week even!

by FreeBradshaw on Jul 26, 2009 12:40 AM EDT up reply actions

I agree with your point about over regulating the pitching staff,

But Aceves should be able to come in any time and get those outs. He’s been good enough to trust. Everybody has bad days. Hopefully Alfie will rebound next time.

I think they should let a guy keep throwing if he’s getting outs. If he is the 7th inning guy, let him pitch the 8th if he got three up/down. Use him if he is hot.

"Character consists of what you do on the third and fourth tries."

James A. Michener

by Lumpee on Jul 25, 2009 8:55 PM EDT reply actions

Right. If it was a guy like Bruney, then I’d be pissed. But Aceves has been rock-solid all year, so I can see why Girardi chose him.

"If you're a Yankee fan, or if you're not a Yankee fan - you have to admit, we're winners." - #21

"Once the Hack-a-Shaq works once, you know I’m going to see it again. The only thing worse for basketball than that defense is the Lack-a-Shaq offense, where I have to go to the bench because of foul trouble. There is no fun in that." - The Big Aristotle

"Pressure is something you feel when you don't know what the hell you're doing." - Peyton

by J-Gao on Jul 25, 2009 9:08 PM EDT up reply actions

I agree with you

but on the other side of the coin, I think that guys are more successful when they have a defined role.

Even Mariano has struggled in “non-save” situations.

In all, I think that better relievers should be used in the highest leverage situations, although, if its the 7th inning, how do you know that there won’t be higher leverage situations to follow?

Also, Ace has been great for us this year, I don’t think I can second guess Joe on that one. I would like it if he was a bit more free with the pen tho.

by Lord Duggan on Jul 25, 2009 9:13 PM EDT reply actions

dude

I know what you’re saying, but there aren’t higher leverage situations than a tie game in the 7th wit bases juiced. That’s what we pay big money to players for, to get out of those jams. I’m not saying using Aceves was a bad decision because he had been money and keep in mind he did get the first out on an infield pop., but right away I said this is what Mariano or Hughes is for. You want to win the games, fuck stats. I’ve always been an advocate for Travis G’s plan to try to keep the game tight now and save it later, rather than save your closer and you may never need him, which happened.

by dyanks10 on Jul 29, 2009 11:11 AM EDT up reply actions

This was not Girardi fault.. He trusted Aceves to get it done.. who is been solid..

I been critical of Girardi before but lets accept it.. the A’s starting pitcher was simply better than Pettite today.. Pettite was good but that 7 inning where he walked garciaparra should have been the place to bring Aceves or Melancon who was fresh. A’s pitcher kept all the hitters in check for 6 innings.. come on give credit where is due. The A’s were simply on a mission today.. Tomorrow Yanks will Win and Start another Streak.. It may be also that Girardi is saving Hughes for tomorrows game who we all know Sergio Mitre is pitching who is still trying to prove himself that can be a trusted as starting pitcher..

by YANK77 on Jul 25, 2009 9:15 PM EDT reply actions

Disagree with this Travis

not the idea that you should bring your best reliever in tough spots, regardless of whether its the 7th or 9th inning. I like that idea, even in 0% of managers usually do so.

I just think Aceves is as trustworthy as anyone out there.

Hughes is the first one everyone thinks of, but what makes him so invincible? Coke has been good too, but he just pitched yesterday and it was unnecessary to make him go 2 in a row.

I don’t like taking Girardi’s side all the time cuz I don’t think he’s the greatest manager in the world (tho he’s a fine one for the Yanks), but it just seems like the guy can never win.

He takes Joba out, he’s taking him out too soon. He takes Hughes out instead of going 2 innings, its too soon. He leaves Pettite in too long today, he puts in Aceves, its a dumb move.

Using the manager as a scapegoat is better than using players as scapegoats I guess, but sometimes the Girardi bashing gets old, especially on this.

What is so bad about bringing Aceves in? MO has pitched in damn near every game since the break, ditto Hughes. Aceves hasn’t pitched since Tuesday. He’s been as reliable as anyone out there lately, so why must we bring in Hughes?

by FreeBradshaw on Jul 25, 2009 9:22 PM EDT reply actions

and i have to disagree

with this statement: “I just think Aceves is as trustworthy as anyone out there.”

anyone but Hughes and Mo, who were rested. i dont care that Aceves hasn’t worked recently. that game was very winnable. we’ll probably need him tomorrow with Mitre going.

by Travis G on Jul 26, 2009 12:22 AM EDT up reply actions

nah..

Aceves has been very good lately. There’s no reason to think he implodes there, none at all.

MO and Hughes may be ""well rested"", but since the break they’ve been pitching a whole lot.

Everything, all the time, is hindsight. I know it was an eternity ago, but Aceves pitched in Andy’s last start.

Similar situation, 1-1 ballgame against the Orioles. Acey gets out of Coke’s jam, Matsui wins it in the 9th.

THAT WAS IN THE 9th INNING TOO!!! OMMFG! HE DIDN"T BRING IN MO! or Hughes.

Its worked before, why not today? Cuz its baseball and shit happens.

by FreeBradshaw on Jul 26, 2009 12:40 AM EDT up reply actions

One day...

…you’re actually going to criticize Girardi.

I just wonder what it’ll take.

by New York Sports Jerk on Jul 26, 2009 1:08 AM EDT up reply actions

I do it plenty of times

I just don’t do it as an involuntary spasm every times he makes a decision.

by FreeBradshaw on Jul 26, 2009 6:58 AM EDT up reply actions

neither do i

but this move stuck out.

by Travis G on Jul 26, 2009 11:59 PM EDT up reply actions

Phillies fan Here

You would be surprised how many times I have cited that piece by Bill James. That man is one of the people I just can’t help but trust.

The creation of the “save” as a statistic has indeed made many men millionaires because of a great 1-2 pitch combo. Rivera, Hoffman, Lidge … all making millions of dollars to (usually) only pitch when they are in line for a certain parameter of rules to qualify for a stat.

Nice post bringing it up though.

"I can play anywhere; First, Third, Left field, anywhere but Philadelphia." - Dick Allen
http://www.travismount.net

by tam5070 on Jul 25, 2009 9:57 PM EDT reply actions

Excellent points, great read

I absolutely agree. I don’t get it. every time I ask why they didn’t bring Hughes in, in any similar type of situation, I get killed because “HE’S THE 8TH INNING GUY, ARE YOU CRAZY?” I love the Bill James reference bc no one really disputes that guy and having him assert the value and utility of relievers is almsot like the ace in the hole. The Twins game comes to mind, when Robertson came in with bases loaded to relieve Aceves I think. And the Yanks ended up winning but not without first making it difficult.

Why didn’t Hughes come in there? He pitched for 1 out in the night prior and I just assumed that was to prepare him for possible longer relief with Aces getting the start the next day. But no, hughes is “the 8th inning guy.” Andy got taken out in the 7th. So they had 2.5 innings left to get through. Hughes is easily the best reliever. Would it have killed them to put him in for 1.5 innings? and then go to Mo? I mean, I would have understood if it was a 3-0 game even, but tied game? You dont’ take any chances there.

I DO like Aces but I like Hughes more, and they had no problem with him going 2 a few games ago when he pitched 8&9. Whats the difference between that and going 7 and 8?

Thank you for eloquently bringing this whole issue up, it’s such a great point. I thought my days of being flummoxed by Farnsworth-in-the-9th-with-tie-because-they-need-mo-for-the-10th justification were gone. But I guess the Yankees always need to have bullpen problems. It’s just that now, our bullpen problem isnt not having any talent, it’s why the talent isnt optimized.

by CrazyYankeeChick on Jul 25, 2009 10:51 PM EDT reply actions

The RP roles need to make sense...

I’m all in favor of a readjusting of the strategy of relief pitchers. Games are won and lost during any inning…and certainly it can be in the 7th. If that situation comes up (to lock down the game to have the best shot of winning), then certainly ANY team that keeps it’s best player on the bench is simply not acting smartly.

I think the current role of closers is all about agents and big contracts. The closer is the sexy job. It could take just one brave GM and manager to start using “closer types”, or shall we say…the best RP on the team, in the most important part of the game that comes up to keep things from getting out of hand.

There’s obviously many times Mo could be used before the 8th or 9th, but he is saved till later IF they take the lead……and really, I’ll never understand why a player like that is saved for later. If you dont set up the win NOW, you wont get to use your best player LATER.

by Ragnar808 on Jul 26, 2009 12:50 AM EDT reply actions

yep, this is the gist

of it: “If you dont set up the win NOW, you wont get to use your best player LATER.”

there was a reason they used to be called ‘Firemen’: they would come into jams (even in the 6th inning) and ‘put out the fire’, giving their team a chance to win rather than hoping a lesser RP could do the same and holding back the better RP for an easier situation later on.

FYI, in 1996, Mo entered the game in the 6th inning 14 times and the 7th 20 times. that was smart of Torre, and a perfect example of how the importance of a closer can be overblown. everyone knows Mo was significantly better than Wetteland that year, despite not being ‘The Closer’.

by Travis G on Jul 27, 2009 12:08 AM EDT up reply actions

i feel this way a lot

this is girardi’s worst flaw…..management of the bullpen

LET'S GO BUFFALO!!!!!!

by BenAllen on Jul 26, 2009 2:25 AM EDT reply actions

I kinda think the bullpen is like CCD

I went to Catholic school and at night there were CCD classes that used our classrooms, (the public school kids who were taking religion classes to get confirmation, etc.) And every time there’d be chalk missing or a mess or the desks were all in disarray or gum on the floor, everyone’d always just be like, “yeah musta been the CCD kids.” The CCD kids may as well have been a lawless group of miscreants because there was nothing we didn’t attribute to them. I don’t even know how this started, I think there was stuff on the blackboard once that wasn’t erased and the teacher was like, Oh this is just from last night, the CCD must have had classes here. And then from then on, CCD was the default scapegoat.

The bullpen is CCD. I agree with everything said here, but I think blaming the management of the bullpen yesterday is like blaming the missing erasers on CCD while the class is throwing spitballs. The team didn’t hit for 6 innings. I disagree with Girardi’s decision, but it wasn’t the worst one he’s ever made.

by CrazyYankeeChick on Jul 26, 2009 1:48 PM EDT reply actions

Ace just had a bad day

Aceves has been our best long inning guy all year out of the bullpen. He’s the guy who saved us from every Wang start when Wang was only going 3-5 innings. Originally, I would have thought Girardi would save him for today since Mitre should not be expected to get through the seventh and a long inning guy will be needed. But I suppose the value of pitching Ace in a jam in the seventh inning of a 1-0 game that Pettite started is better than not knowing if Mitre will keep the game close the next day – which would mean Albaladejo would pitch instead in the long role.
There was obviously a need to get Ace some work since he’s only pitched a few times since July 9. But I do agree that Girardi shouldn’t have waited until the bases were loaded before bringing him in.

by Mo42 on Jul 26, 2009 2:01 PM EDT reply actions

When did Ace become unreliable?

He’s been good enough to get out of those situations before. He’s not better than Hughes, but I don’t understand lambasting Girardi for using one of his best relievers in that situation.

by jman2050 on Jul 26, 2009 3:44 PM EDT reply actions