Evaluating Relief Pitchers

by jscape2000 on Dec 7, 2007 4:22 PM EST in News Comment 20 comments

Once again, I'd like to turn your attention to the fine folks over at The Hardball Times.

Dave Studeman has a long (and worthwhile) breakdown of performance value against contract length. Using his analysis, let's talk about the Yankees bullpen.

In this year's Hardball Times Annual, David Gassko has a great graphic showing that the performance of batters tends to increase until they reach the ages of 27 to 29, then gradually decrease. This is the typical aging pattern known to sabermetricians everywhere. Pitchers, on the other hand, are at their best before the age of 28, after which they gradually decline. And there is no clearly defined peak in the early years--pitchers in their early 20s may have their best years at the age of 22 or 28--the results are rather random.

Obviously, wear and tear on a pitcher's arm is the issue here, but there's also an implication for the distribution of major league pitching talent (and pitching contracts). Since players have to pitch six years in the majors before becoming a free agent, the most production in any given year tends to come from pitchers who aren't yet free agents.

The Yanks are coming to camp with 18 pitchers on their 40 man roster who all want a spot in the bullpen. A 19th, Mariano Rivera, is probably going to be guaranteed a spot. Of those 18, 15 are between the ages of 24 and 28, 'prime' years for a pitcher.

The Yankee bullpen gold standard (Stanton and Nelson) both played with the Yankees after turning 29. They had good years, but they'd both already had their career year by this point (Stanton at 24, Nelson at 28).

The more I learn about what to expect from relievers, the more amazed I am at how lucky the Yankees were to have those two beat the odds at the same time.

What this all comes down to, in my opinion, is the foolishness of re-signing a guy like Viz or signing a LaTroy Hawkins for 3 or 4 million dollars, even on a one year contract.

I've said it before: let's put that 3 million into next year's draft so that we sign the Mark Priors and Gregory Peaveys of the world.

0 recs | Comment 20 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

If money were nothing to me

I would want Viz in my bullpen, because I think that someone who has had his success and durability is someone who we need to have around.

So if we could have him for a million a few million for a year or two then I would, but I agree these long term deals for relievers are insane.

I am worried about the lack of quality arms in the many that are trying out for the bullpen. I am excited for the tommy john recoverees but I was under the impression that they would not break camp with the team. I think the bullpen will become better as these prospects become usable.

Eleven wins in October...

by Edwantsacracker on Dec 8, 2007 1:03 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

quantity is good

very hard to predict from year to year who will be good

Yanks should probably add a couple Japanese pitchers to the mix, and, from the press reports that I have seen, they seem likely to do that

so you have reason to be encouraged

and if all else fails, Joba can go back to set up man -- where I fully expect to see him this year

by Frank Malzone on Dec 8, 2007 8:01 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

Can we please stop saying stuff like this?

The only way Joba ends up in the pen is if he is mediocre to suck as a starter. There is no way that they will move him to the pen if he is dealing. If you "expect" to see him as a set up man next year that means that you "expect" him to get rocked as a starter. Please explain why you have such a low opinion of him.

Everything looks nicer when you win. The girls are prettier. The cigars taste better. The trees are greener. --Billy Martin

by garp on Dec 9, 2007 1:24 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I expect him to be a setup man

at the end of the season as he reaches his innings cap. I also expect that if the rotation becomes Santana, Wang, Pettitte, IPK, Moose, that Joba will make a dozen or so spot starts and spend the rest of his time in the pen.

He's got a cap of 150 innings; if the Yankees are smart they'll spread those 150 out over the entire season.

"Have faith in the Yankees, my son. Think of the great DiMaggio."

by jscape2000 on Dec 9, 2007 1:32 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Let's hope that he is not "too" good

then, otherwise it will be a bit tough to shut him down.

Everything looks nicer when you win. The girls are prettier. The cigars taste better. The trees are greener. --Billy Martin

by garp on Dec 9, 2007 3:27 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

You call this success?

2007 NYY 77 G 75.1 IP 66H 37R 36ER 6HR 43BB 62K 8 2 0 14 3 4.30 ERA...He allowed 107 baserunners in 75.1 innings with 43 BB and 62K and you call this success? You're worse than Cashman.

by andyroth on Dec 9, 2007 2:16 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

Please use the reply to button

What I would call a success is creating a career where people want you in thier bullpen. He has been a major leaguer since 99 in a very volatile position. He has posted ERA+ of 136, 116, 120, 132, and 104.

I think for a set up man that is pretty good. I am not saying he is an outstanding pitcher but if he was a better pitcher he would be a closer, and if he was a better pitcher he would be a starter.

Eleven wins in October...

by Edwantsacracker on Dec 9, 2007 9:11 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Kind of fascinating ...

I'd heard about pitchers peaking earlier than hitters, but never that they generally did their best work prior to 29. So I started digging--looking at some of the greats, and here's what I discovered. Guys like Hunter, Drysdale, Feller did seem to flame out when they hit 30. However, pitchers like Hubbell, Grove, Spahn, Maddux, Ford, Perry did their best work throughout their 30s. Others, like Palmer, Seaver, Gibson, Marichal, Burdette, Clemens and Glavine have all pitched extremely effectively throughout their 30s as well--just not in as dominating a fashion. Still fascinated, I called a couple of buddies of mine who are very much a part of the game--one is a scout for the Sux, the other is the head coach for a Division One college team and perennial powerhouse. I posed the question to them. Their answers were similar. Both respect sabermetrics, but issued a cautionary statement saying, they should be referred to with a grain of salt. Said one, "The light goes on and off for pitchers at different times. Dwight Gooden did his best work before he was 24. However Ron Guidry and Warren Spahn had barely started pitching by the time they were 28." While sabermetrics is fascinating, it wouldn't stop me from signing a 29-32 year old pitcher who was still getting the job done.

"Baseball is the background music of my life." -George Will

by Ronster22 on Dec 10, 2007 2:47 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

I forgot ...

to mention that after reading the evaluation of "relief" pitchers, I got to thinking if it would apply to starters as well. I should have clarified.

"Baseball is the background music of my life." -George Will

by Ronster22 on Dec 10, 2007 2:52 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I was

just wondering if you noticed a trend with pitchers being dominate longer as it has gotten closer to present day. I mean i am just assuming that they are in better shape these days

re-sign Jaret Wright

by yankeechaser on Dec 11, 2007 12:22 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

That's tough ...

If you look at the careers of Walter Johnson, Christy Mathewson, Lefty Grove, they regularly pitched 300 innings. I understand the mound was alittle higher, but the strain on the arm had to be the same. I wonder how they maintained their dominance for so long? I do know that today's players are in far better shape than those of even 20 years ago. I happen to be one of those guys who believes Babe Ruth wouldn't have faired so well in today's game simply because of the improved product. To your question, I really don't know. Having taken a cursory look over the last 20 years, I would say no, they aren't dominant longer. In fact, I could argue that they are breaking down faster. This is the great mystery to me. With advances in training, pitch counts, the disappearance of complete games and the advent of 7th and 8th inning specialists, the natural inclination would be that pitchers last longer. I may be wrong, but I don't see it. I will research this abit more.

"Baseball is the background music of my life." -George Will

by Ronster22 on Dec 11, 2007 4:34 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Because

the ball was dead, brown and shaped like an egg! An 85MPH was fast enough to get by someone. It is no coincidence that with the emergence of Ruth, the league began using a dozen or so balls a game as opposed to two or three.

Nuke the whales. Save Phil Hughes!

by marcbouch9 on Dec 11, 2007 5:18 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Also

they changed the material used for the ball's guts at that point too.

I remember Jim Kaat saying that if he could get a ball with a scuff on it he felt like he could get anybody out.

"Have faith in the Yankees, my son. Think of the great DiMaggio."

by jscape2000 on Dec 11, 2007 10:24 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Kaat

I actually know Jim Kaat, and he might be the perfect guy to clear this mystery up in my mind. Both of you are correct. The deadball era certainly affected eras, bas, but guys still had to throw the ball. The strain is the same. I want to know why in the modern era where starters aren't expected to go more than 6 innings are so many breaking down. Kaat will be able to shed light on it. I will keep you posted.

"Baseball is the background music of my life." -George Will

by Ronster22 on Dec 12, 2007 9:48 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Awesome

I missed Jim Kaat in the booth this past season. He was the best broadcaster they've had in recent years.

by anaconda on Dec 12, 2007 12:20 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Agreed

Somehow Kay was much more tolerable with Kaat around.

Nuke the whales. Save Phil Hughes!

by marcbouch9 on Dec 12, 2007 10:38 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

But

150 pitches at 75% is a lot easier than 100 at 95%. Sandy Koufax put much more strain on his arm than a Christy Mathewson because he played in an era that favored the hitter. The guys who relied solely on throwing hard back then fizzled out in a year or two. See: Smokey Joe Wood.

Nuke the whales. Save Phil Hughes!

by marcbouch9 on Dec 12, 2007 10:41 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Not necessarily

Who was throwing at 75%? Back in the dead ball era, guys still threw hard. I'd argue Mathewson pitched in a hitter era because there were so few good pitchers around. Hitters were putting up robust numbers through the 20s-30s. In the 60s era's were as high as Andy Roth's IQ. Pitchers dominated. It wasn't until the mound was lowered that we started to see greater offensive production.

"Baseball is the background music of my life." -George Will

by Ronster22 on Dec 13, 2007 10:21 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I would agree with you

but Mathewson only pitched until 1916. His career ERA was 2.19 and the league AVG was 2.89. Dead ball. Walter Johnson threw hard, but there is no way he was throwing Randy Johnson in the late 90's hard.

Koufax was a bad example. His dominance was the late 60's, where pitchers dominated. Late 50's/early 60's was a hitter's era. Don Newcombe would have been a better example: did well in a hitter's era, but couldn't top 200IP after age 31.

Nuke the whales. Save Phil Hughes!

by marcbouch9 on Dec 13, 2007 6:55 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Stay tuned ...

I'm neck deep in my research. I'm actually finding some fascinating stuff. Not sure what exactly I'm going to find, but it certainly is an interesting issue--at least in my opinion.

"Baseball is the background music of my life." -George Will

by Ronster22 on Dec 14, 2007 9:52 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs