Could they adjust?!  Sure, but why should they?  They've established a system, probably flawed, but a system nevertheless.  Put it this way, it's a copycat league.  If a team wins with closer by committee, more teams will do it.

Just like going for it on 4th and 2 outside your own 40-yard line.  It might make sense, but nobody is gonna do it until someone who does it ALL the time.wins the Super Bowl.

Well, I already argued that.   The first thing that has to change is how agents/GMs pay RP.    Until agents/players are convinced that the best RP will be paid appropriately regardless of "saves", all this discussion is bullshit.    Then, if that would ever happen, teams would have to condition players to the "new" way.

Hell, arguably the best RP ever had to adjust from starter to set-up to closer.   I bet, when he was failing as a starter, he'd have pitched the 3rd inning just to avoid being sent back to the islands.

Posted by MikeT23 on 1/20/2016 1:41:00 PM (view original):
I've argued long and hard that the way managers use their bullpen is stupid.    And it's not the manager's fault.   It's agents/GMs.  

"My guy had 38 saves."
"OMG!!!!  Will 10m a year work?"

"My guy had 78 innings of work with a .98 WHIP."
"OK.  How many saves?"
"3 but the manager didn't use him that way."
"Sounds like a set-up guy.  2m per year."

 

This.

"Jones.  Get up and get ready.  I need you to pitch the 7th."
"Sorry, boss, I'm a closer.   Call me in the 8th and I'll get ready for the 9th."
"OK, Jones.   Enjoy your bus ride to Pawtucket after the game."

Bet Jones changes his tune on when he can pitch.

Posted by MikeT23 on 1/20/2016 7:40:00 PM (view original):
It's "obvious" that you're right because we have a whooping 15-20 years of evidence.   And NO ONE is doing anything differently.    It can't be one team because of the pay structure.   Mr.Closer isn't going to pitch for a team that uses it's best reliever in the 7th.   Because he's Mr.Closer not Mr.Pitchinthemostimportantpartofthegame.

Are you denying that the current usage of closers is new in baseball terms?   Because, if you're not, you're confirming my point.  Pitchers are conditioned to pitch in clearly defined roles.   If a few teams changed that, in their minors now, those pitchers would be conditioned to pitch when the manager called on them.   Because, if they didn't, they wouldn't be pitching very long.

Finally, I said the mid-inning replacement is tougher.    Under my "system", you have guys who do that.   They aren't the best RP, they're just the most versatile.   The guys who HAVE to pitch when called upon or they're on a bus to AAA. 

I'm completely in agreement that the current usage of closers is new baseball terms.

Are you denying that the current "new" usage of closers has lowered their ERAs by 25% relative to starters?  Because that's just a statistical fact...

Nope, not denying that.  But I think there are a few more things at play than just usage. 

K rates are at an all-time high.   Attributable to the somewhat new belief that whiffs aren't necessarily a bad thing.
Velocity is at an all-time high.   More guys can smoke it at 95+ than ever.
Specialization is at an all-time high.   Which is just saying pitchers are told to get three outs and they're done.

I won't even get into the fact that surgical repair has been able to bring some guys back better than ever when they would have been done 25 years ago.

To be clear, I'm not advocating that we get 3 inning appearances.    I'm just saying a guy capable of getting three outs in the 9th should be able to get three outs in the 7th.    There is no magic that happens after 8 innings.   He's just conditioned to only pitch the 9th.   My dogs peed inside until I conditioned them to go outside.   RP are smarter than dogs.   I think. 

I think to a reasonable extent K rates and velocity might be a result of specialization, which you already seem to admit is a positive factor in reliever success.

Maybe preparation isn't the right explanation.  That's just a theory.  What's a fact is that in the entire decade of the '70s, there were 27 pitchers who threw at least 50 innings with an ERA+ of 200 or better.  In the past 5 years there have been 63.

Based on that fact alone, I'm not going to push for my team to move away from the "new ideas" on utilization of relievers.  I'm a scientist.  I have to accept the data that exists, rather than trying to come up with a justification to ignore it.

I'm not sure a lot of the RP I've met are smarter than dogs...

I'll ask this and be done with it.    Your best RP and your 2nd best RP are available.   You have a 1 run lead.  

3-4-5 are coming up in the 8th.
7-8-9 are coming up in the 9th.

What usage would give you the best chance to win?

Posted by MikeT23 on 1/20/2016 9:03:00 PM (view original):
Nope, not denying that.  But I think there are a few more things at play than just usage. 

K rates are at an all-time high.   Attributable to the somewhat new belief that whiffs aren't necessarily a bad thing.
Velocity is at an all-time high.   More guys can smoke it at 95+ than ever.
Specialization is at an all-time high.   Which is just saying pitchers are told to get three outs and they're done.

I won't even get into the fact that surgical repair has been able to bring some guys back better than ever when they would have been done 25 years ago.

Exactly.  And they're all interrelated. 

Velocity and specialization are probably closely related.  Knowing that you're only throwing one inning, 12-15 pitches, you're not going to leave anything in the tank.  That might add 1 or 2 MPH to the velocity, which was already faster than it used to be because of better training and conditioning as pitchers are developed.

Factor in the higher velocity together with the "strikeouts are just a different kind of out" mentality, and you get the perception that RP's are better than they used to be.

****, now that I think about it, I'd expect part of your job description is "Find a better way".    Otherwise, what the hell are you doing?

Posted by MikeT23 on 1/20/2016 9:11:00 PM (view original):
I'll ask this and be done with it.    Your best RP and your 2nd best RP are available.   You have a 1 run lead.  

3-4-5 are coming up in the 8th.
7-8-9 are coming up in the 9th.

What usage would give you the best chance to win?

I disagree with the premise.

Well-built teams in the 2010s have multiple elite relief arms.  There isn't necessarily a clear differentiation between your best and 2nd-best arms.  That's why most managers and GMs seem to think that anything they can do to raise the level of their pitchers is probably worth more than trying to put the "best" arms in the highest leverage situations.

In the most extreme example, if you're Ned Yost in 2015, do you really feel the need to bring Holland in early for a high-pressure situation when the guys in front of him are Madson, Herrerra, and Davis?  If you're 2016 Joe Girardi, do you feel the need to bring Chapman in early - potentially out of his comfort zone - when you've got Miller and Betances?

I'm more of an AL guy, as I think you are.  Of the top 20 relievers in the AL this year by ERA (50+ IP), only 3 had 20+ saves.  I think the situation in the NL is similar, I can look when I get a chance.  But regardless, the best relievers aren't necessarily closing.  And some setup guys are being paid handsomely, contrary to popular belief.  When you have an abundance of high quality arms, I think it makes sense to keep them all comfortable with well-defined roles and usage patterns.

As I said earlier, if I'm the Mets, I might go to my closer early in the right situation.  But most teams don't need to do it.  They have other guys who are similarly talented to their 9th inning guy.

Posted by dahsdebater on 1/20/2016 10:31:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 1/20/2016 9:11:00 PM (view original):
I'll ask this and be done with it.    Your best RP and your 2nd best RP are available.   You have a 1 run lead.  

3-4-5 are coming up in the 8th.
7-8-9 are coming up in the 9th.

What usage would give you the best chance to win?

I disagree with the premise.

Well-built teams in the 2010s have multiple elite relief arms.  There isn't necessarily a clear differentiation between your best and 2nd-best arms.  That's why most managers and GMs seem to think that anything they can do to raise the level of their pitchers is probably worth more than trying to put the "best" arms in the highest leverage situations.

In the most extreme example, if you're Ned Yost in 2015, do you really feel the need to bring Holland in early for a high-pressure situation when the guys in front of him are Madson, Herrerra, and Davis?  If you're 2016 Joe Girardi, do you feel the need to bring Chapman in early - potentially out of his comfort zone - when you've got Miller and Betances?

I'm more of an AL guy, as I think you are.  Of the top 20 relievers in the AL this year by ERA (50+ IP), only 3 had 20+ saves.  I think the situation in the NL is similar, I can look when I get a chance.  But regardless, the best relievers aren't necessarily closing.  And some setup guys are being paid handsomely, contrary to popular belief.  When you have an abundance of high quality arms, I think it makes sense to keep them all comfortable with well-defined roles and usage patterns.

As I said earlier, if I'm the Mets, I might go to my closer early in the right situation.  But most teams don't need to do it.  They have other guys who are similarly talented to their 9th inning guy.

If you're going to badluck me, I can't have a discussion with you.    I'll re-phrase, once, and if you take this route again, I'll just drop it. 

You have Mariano Rivera and Brian Bruney in the bullpen.  Both are RH RP.   You have a 1 run lead.  

3-4-5 are coming up in the 8th.
7-8-9 are coming up in the 9th.

What usage would give you the best chance to win?   

BTW, if the world worked like this "I have to accept the data that exists, rather than trying to come up with a justification to ignore it", we'd all be living in caves and stoking our fires.   After all, the data of the time confirmed that fire kept us warm and caves sheltered us from the weather.   No need to ignore that data.