The Atlanta Braves (thread 1)

[VOLinthaNATI]

Then let's see some evidence to the contrary. If managers' tactical decisions make a huge difference, then you'd expect to see some managers whose teams consistently had better won/loss records than their runs scored/allowed would suggest. (Superior tactical ability ought to be reflected in a better-than-expected record in close games, and therefore a better W/L record than you'd project based just on runs.) So if good managers make a difference, it ought to be easy to come up with a list of managers like that. Throw out a few names of guys whom you think are clearly difference-making tactical managers, and we'll look it up and see what their records look like.

I have zero reason to do this. Unlike yourself I realize that stats are not the end all be all.

I have a question for you, did you happen to play baseball past a little league level?

 

[Vercingetorix]

I have zero reason to do this. Unlike yourself I realize that stats are not the end all be all.

I have a question for you, did you happen to play baseball past a little league level?

Ah, the Phil Fulmer argument. "I ain't gonna take no criticism from nobody that never played the game." You can tell someone's got nothing when they pull that one out. Not that it's relevant, but I played up until high school, at which point I abruptly became terrible and gave up. By the time we figured out that I really just needed glasses it was too late to get back into it.

I don't think that stats are the be all and end all; I'm not going to take something like VORP and pretend that it actually exists and get into arguments about it. Stats are a useful tool as long as you keep firmly in mind that none of them are perfect. But I do have a stubborn belief that if something exists, then it necessarily has to be empirically identifiable and at least vaguely measurable. If managers' in-game decisions have a significant effect on winning and losing games, and some managers are significantly better at it than others, then that skill ought to have a consistently detectable effect on a team's won-loss record. If it doesn't, then that skill either doesn't exist or is insignificant. And you might as well believe in the Tooth Fairy.

 

[TennNC]

I heard that earlier in the year wasn't sure if a hotter candidate has merged..

i love fredi - who would be a better candidate?

 

[Vercingetorix]

Ah, Derek Lowe's Massive Contract -- there you go again. Why do you hate us so?

 

[OrangeWilly]

Derek Blowe's

 

[MadcapLaughs]

Tulo with the early gift.
Maybe Lowe can settle in

 

[MadcapLaughs]

gozo with the textbook coors field homer.

 

[whocaresgobobcats]

Tie game, eighth inning, first and third with nobody out. The game is on the line RIGHT NOW. But there isn't a manager in baseball who would go ahead and bring his #1 relief pitcher into that situation to keep the game winnable. Instead he'll run his second- or third-best guy out there and save his best reliever for some hypothetical save situation that may or may not happen. It's like drinking Early Times for five years with a bottle of Johnny Walker Blue on your shelf that you're saving for something special, except then you die and somebody else gets to drink it.

It's not just the closer that gets horribly mismanaged. Last year the Braves blew a six- or seven run lead in one awful inning; they gave up something like eight runs in the sixth inning. Cox changed pitchers several times, but he kept dutifully bringing out the fourth- and fifth- and sixth-best bullpen arms because it was "too early" to go to his closer or setup guys. He never tried to stop the bleeding with his best options. By the time they got into the game, the Braves were down by two or three runs and the game was over.

By your line of thinking, the #3 and 4 bullpen guys are going to give up runs, and you would rather have them pitching in the 9th inning, where the offense only has 3 outs to work with after the bullpen blows the lead.

However, most managers like to use their lesser bullpen guys as LH/RH match-up in the earlier innings and save there better arms for the last outs. Therefore, if the bullpen does give up some runs, the offense still has 9-12 outs to work with.

Eventually, those lesser arms are going to have to come in the game, and you would rather them in the game in 9th inning.

What's the point of your best arm coming in the 7th innings to preserve a tie only to have a guy with 4.78 ERA and terrible BB/K ration come in the 9th.

The best thing to do is to build a bullpen based on match ups. Get a RHP who dominate RHB and get a LHP who dominate LHB and then have two guys who can eat innings and have a solid closer.

 

[Vercingetorix]

By your line of thinking, the #3 and 4 bullpen guys are going to give up runs, and you would rather have them pitching in the 9th inning, where the offense only has 3 outs to work with after the bullpen blows the lead.

However, most managers like to use their lesser bullpen guys as LH/RH match-up in the earlier innings and save there better arms for the last outs. Therefore, if the bullpen does give up some runs, the offense still has 9-12 outs to work with.

Eventually, those lesser arms are going to have to come in the game, and you would rather them in the game in 9th inning.

What's the point of your best arm coming in the 7th innings to preserve a tie only to have a guy with 4.78 ERA and terrible BB/K ration come in the 9th.

The best thing to do is to build a bullpen based on match ups. Get a RHP who dominate RHB and get a LHP who dominate LHB and then have two guys who can eat innings and have a solid closer.

But if it's the 7th or 8th inning and there are runners on base and dangerous hitters up, then the game is on the line NOW. I would rather have my best arm in now and take my chances with the 4.78 ERA guy next inning with the sacks clear. You've got to get the same number of outs either way; why not use your best arm in what you know is already a critical spot?

Or imagine this -- 8th inning, you're up by one, the other team's 3-4-5 hitters are up. The smart move here is to go ahead and use your closer now to get through the heart of the order, and then bring the so-called setup guy in in the 9th to pitch to the bottom of the order. Yet there's not a manager in baseball who would do that. They manage the bullpens as though the goal is to compile the most saves for their closer, not to leverage their best bullpen arm into the most possible wins for the team.

 

[GAVol]

Your argument has merit, but for those teams that have a legitimate shutdown closer, I think shortening the game to 8 innings is still the smart play.

 

[Vercingetorix]

It made sense for the Yankees back when they had Wetteland for the 9th and Rivera going two innings in front of him; you had to beat them in six innings or you weren't going to beat them. I don't think shortening the game by one inning is worth earmarking the best arm in your bullpen solely for one-inning save appearances.

A closer is good for what, 70 appearances max? It seems a criminal waste of resources to have half of those appearances come in two- and three-run games that you could just as easily close out with Johnny Nimrod.

 

[GAVol]

I'll give you this much . . . The definition of "Save" is way too generous. I'd like to see saves only awarded in 1 run games and then add a new category called a "Close" which is awarded to whoever finishes the game for the winning team no matter what the score.

 

[GAVol]

That was unbelievable. Saito strikes out what should have been the 3rd out and McCann missed the ball by 6 inches?!?

 

[Vercingetorix]

I'll give you this much . . . The definition of "Save" is way too generous. I'd like to see saves only awarded in 1 run games and then add a new category called a "Close" which is awarded to whoever finishes the game for the winning team no matter what the score.

I'd like to see them take the objective criteria of the save out of the question completely and allow the official scorer, at his discretion, to award a save to whichever relief pitcher he feels pitched the best in the most important situation -- sort of like the way he gets to award a win to whichever reliever he thinks deserves it if the starter fails to go four innings. It's just nonsensical to routinely use your best reliever in a three-run game but never in a tie game, just because that's the way the statistic is drawn up. The save has become the tail that wags the dog.

It won't happen until we get a ballsy manager who doesn't care about the press second-guessing him and who has a closer with a great, team-first attitude. Then he'll be lionized for reinventing the bullpen, other teams will try to follow suit but their closers will ***** about it because they're not getting saves in every appearance, and baseball will eventually get around to monkeying around with the save statistic to reflect the new reality.

 

[Vercingetorix]

That was unbelievable. Saito strikes out what should have been the 3rd out and McCann missed the ball by 6 inches?!?

It would have been 10x worse if it had been the go-ahead runs that scored because of it instead of just insurance runs. The Braves sure didn't look like they were going to score in the 9th anyway.

Phillies-Houston going to the 15th. Howard just kicked out of the game for whining about a called third strike; apparently the Phillies are going to have to use a pitcher to play the field somewhere because they're out of players. Nice.

EDIT: Roy Oswalt playing left field in the 15th. No bullpen pitchers left either.

EDIT 2: And the first pitch of the inning goes right to Oswalt in left. This is on MLB Network if you've got it.

 

[UTRocky]

That was unbelievable. Saito strikes out what should have been the 3rd out and McCann missed the ball by 6 inches?!?

not sure McCann would of gotten it since the umpire made no attempt to move. But either way pretty much killed any rally that they were going to have.

 

[VOLinthaNATI]

Ah, the Phil Fulmer argument. "I ain't gonna take no criticism from nobody that never played the game." You can tell someone's got nothing when they pull that one out. Not that it's relevant, but I played up until high school, at which point I abruptly became terrible and gave up. By the time we figured out that I really just needed glasses it was too late to get back into it.

I don't think that stats are the be all and end all; I'm not going to take something like VORP and pretend that it actually exists and get into arguments about it. Stats are a useful tool as long as you keep firmly in mind that none of them are perfect. But I do have a stubborn belief that if something exists, then it necessarily has to be empirically identifiable and at least vaguely measurable. If managers' in-game decisions have a significant effect on winning and losing games, and some managers are significantly better at it than others, then that skill ought to have a consistently detectable effect on a team's won-loss record. If it doesn't, then that skill either doesn't exist or is insignificant. And you might as well believe in the Tooth Fairy.

I was not implying that because you didn't play past whatever that you have no clue. I was just curious to know as it sheds some light on the way you think about the game. Nice try.

 

[VOLinthaNATI]

But if it's the 7th or 8th inning and there are runners on base and dangerous hitters up, then the game is on the line NOW. I would rather have my best arm in now and take my chances with the 4.78 ERA guy next inning with the sacks clear. You've got to get the same number of outs either way; why not use your best arm in what you know is already a critical spot?

Or imagine this -- 8th inning, you're up by one, the other team's 3-4-5 hitters are up. The smart move here is to go ahead and use your closer now to get through the heart of the order, and then bring the so-called setup guy in in the 9th to pitch to the bottom of the order. Yet there's not a manager in baseball who would do that. They manage the bullpens as though the goal is to compile the most saves for their closer, not to leverage their best bullpen arm into the most possible wins for the team.

I'm sure every manager for the last 100 years is going to be pissed at themselves for not using your line of thinking in regards to their bullpen.

Literally, every one of them can't believe they never thought of managing it like you have outlined.

You should write a book.

 

[whocaresgobobcats]

It made sense for the Yankees back when they had Wetteland for the 9th and Rivera going two innings in front of him; you had to beat them in six innings or you weren't going to beat them. I don't think shortening the game by one inning is worth earmarking the best arm in your bullpen solely for one-inning save appearances.

A closer is good for what, 70 appearances max? It seems a criminal waste of resources to have half of those appearances come in two- and three-run games that you could just as easily close out with Johnny Nimrod.

Of course it makes sense, but not every team has two shut down relievers like that.

Sure, you could run out any reliever with a 2-3 run lead, but they wouldn't be very consistent. That's the biggest difference between elite closers and other bullpen arms, they are lot more consistent. You can count on them to get three outs no matter who they face and they have the confidence they can do it. Other guys, you use in match-up situations because they can't get a lefty out, or they struggle against righties. But closers should have the ability to get anyone out, and that's what you need at the end of the game.

That's why closer by committee doesn't work very well, just go look a few years ago when Atlanta tried it. And in 2003 when Boston tried, but eventually gave up and turned to BHK.

Here's a very good article about bullpen and closers by committee, with lots of good quotes from scouts, managers, front office guys, and Pedro Martinez.

Well, Martinez said again that he was concerned about a 40-save man slipping away. "When you have a guy who saved 40 games for you, it's difficult for you to understand that you're going to really just hand the ball to a committee of relievers that you have never seen before," he said after Monday's game. "To me, it's the first time I've ever seen this happen. Maybe for Grady it's not. But for me it's something new. I am going to have to trust Grady on that and just shut my mouth and continue to do my work.

And you look at this article stating that the Twins will go with a closer by committee this year. However, that didn't last long, as Jon Rauch eventually took over the closer's role. And now it's Matt Capps' job since they traded for him.

Lot's of teams have tried your idea of bull pen by committee, but it just doesn't work as well. There are always going to be blown saves and leads given up by bullpens, that's baseball. Changing around your bullpen isn't going to change that.

 

[VOLinthaNATI]

It made sense for the Yankees back when they had Wetteland for the 9th and Rivera going two innings in front of him; you had to beat them in six innings or you weren't going to beat them. I don't think shortening the game by one inning is worth earmarking the best arm in your bullpen solely for one-inning save appearances.

A closer is good for what, 70 appearances max? It seems a criminal waste of resources to have half of those appearances come in two- and three-run games that you could just as easily close out with Johnny Nimrod.

Clueless. The role of closer is as much mental as it is physical. Not every guy has the make up to do it. I don't care if he has a 3 run lead or a 1 run lead. It's still closing the game out and some guys aren't cut out for it.

 

[TBrown]

I was not implying that because you didn't play past whatever that you have no clue. I was just curious to know as it sheds some light on the way you think about the game. Nice try.

He quit before high school and I played through college. You disagree with everything we both say. I can't imagine what light is being shed for you.

 

[volville]

Nice start to the day. We don't need a sweep. We've been lucky the Phils have mirrored our losses lately.

 

[VOLinthaNATI]

He quit before high school and I played through college. You disagree with everything we both say. I can't imagine what light is being shed for you.

Complete garbage and untrue. You both have made statements I agree with. Don't act all butt hurt...

But you have peaked my interest...where did you play in college?

 

[Vercingetorix]

Of course it makes sense, but not every team has two shut down relievers like that.

Sure, you could run out any reliever with a 2-3 run lead, but they wouldn't be very consistent. That's the biggest difference between elite closers and other bullpen arms, they are lot more consistent. You can count on them to get three outs no matter who they face and they have the confidence they can do it. Other guys, you use in match-up situations because they can't get a lefty out, or they struggle against righties. But closers should have the ability to get anyone out, and that's what you need at the end of the game.

Then why would you let them sit there in watch with the bases loaded in the 8th inning when the game is on the line, just because it's not a "save situation" yet? You could close out most of your three-run games by letting a freaking shortstop come in and pitch. Managers probably waste a third of their closers' appearances, and they lose games they should win because the closer never pitches.

That's why closer by committee doesn't work very well, just go look a few years ago when Atlanta tried it. And in 2003 when Boston tried, but eventually gave up and turned to BHK.

I'm not talking about a closer by committee. I'm talking about a manger who goes to his best relief pitcher and says, "You are my closer. You are my stopper. I'm going to use you about 70 times this year, and I'm going to use you in the situations when I think the game is on the line and I need outs. Most of time that'll be in the 9th inning, but sometimes it'll be in the 8th with the other team's best hitters up, and sometimes it'll be in a tie game with runners on base. I'm going to use you whenever we need outs the most, not whenever the stat sheet says you'll get a save."

"Closer by committee" is a euphemism for "we don't really have anybody very good at all in the bullpen." That's not what I'm talking about at all.

 

[golfballs]

Well, it would have been nice to spread out the run production this series, but I'm not compaining.