Most of this commentary isn't even taking a firm stance. It is long winded grandstanding with a 'look how much I know' flair.

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?

Joakim Soria in the 8th
Joe Nathan "closer" in the 9th

Posted by MikeT23 on 1/21/2016 6:57:00 AM (view original):

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?   

Unless it's 2008, probably Rivera in the 8th.  He never had as much problem as a lot of other guys with throwing at different times.

But unless it's 2008, it's highly unlikely that the best arm you had left, aside from Rivera, was Brian Bruney.  Maybe coming off a 17-inning game it would come up...

Thanks, badluck.   Enjoy your day. 

Posted by MikeT23 on 1/21/2016 12:33:00 PM (view original):
Thanks, badluck.   Enjoy your day. 

So I'm just supposed to blindly go along with your nonsensical hypothetical?

I've already said at least twice that if I were the Mets I'd go to Familia early in certain situations because I don't really trust my other arms.  I just don't think that's the standard situation on competitive teams right now.  I wouldn't take my "best" reliever outside his comfort zone when my 2nd-, 3rd-, and 4th-best relievers all have ERAs in the 1s and 2s.

I didn't think SABRmetric minions were all that big about ERA.  Especially for relievers.

Did something change?

I'm pretty sure I have literally always leaned on ERA and ERA+ when evaluating pitchers.  Not sure where you've been.

Posted by MikeT23 on 1/21/2016 9:12:00 AM (view original):
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.

This.

If you looked around hard enough, you could probably find a rather extensive discussion in which I attacked the premise of FIP.

Posted by MikeT23 on 1/21/2016 1:04:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 1/21/2016 9:12:00 AM (view original):
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.

This.

I ignored this because it's stupid.

Ignoring data is why most of the populace thought the world was flat for most of human history.  Listening to data moves thought forward, not backward.

There is a better way and pitchers need to be conditioned, and paid appropriately, for it.   Relief pitchers are not sensitive creatures that can only pitch the 9th inning.  The "save" is new and, unfortunately, pitchers with saves are paid more than the pitcher with similar results who don't get saves.    There is no 3 inning ritual that must be performed before entering in the 9th, and only the 9th, of a close game.   If there is, said ritual needs to be adjusted.   The best RP for the situation, and all situations are not equal or created the same, is the RP that should be used in that situation.   Rivera actually pitched mid-inning and sometimes threw 2 innings.  Successfully.   In the playoffs.    It's just plain stupid to think he couldn't do that against the Orioles in June.    Unless you believe in some magic switch he flipped in October and, of course, unicorns.

Posted by dahsdebater on 1/21/2016 1:03:00 PM (view original):
I'm pretty sure I have literally always leaned on ERA and ERA+ when evaluating pitchers.  Not sure where you've been.

Sounds like that's your problem.

Maybe BL can explain to you why ERA is a poor way to evaluate relief pitchers.

Yeah, run-prevention is a terrible metric by which to measure pitchers...

Mike, what makes you so convinced "there is a better way?"  A couple of years ago I saw the Orioles go something like 73-0 when leading after 7 innings.  Last year they lost something like 4 or 5 games in that scenario.  I think the Yankees lost even fewer.

Unless you can come up with a bunch of pitchers with 0.00 ERAs, that's basically the best you can do.  There isn't a lot of room for improvement.  I do agree that the salary structure should probably be less dependent on saves.  It's moving in that direction, but slowly.  Might be because of the surplus of arms, but that should cause closers to earn less as well.  But in terms of performance, I just don't see where starting to move guys around is going to help.  I can see why it ostensibly might generate more favorable scenarios, but I just don't see much room for improvement, so I don't see any reason to make the change.  If I want my manager to risk his neck changing the status quo on pitcher usage, I'd rather see him be the first guy to actually take the plunge in switching to tandem rotations.