Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
Should a team's best reliever be saved for the 9th inning? (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter Chiwawa
- Start date
Spartans Rule
Footballguy
I don't think so. I always thought the idea of an ace reliever as a fireman rather than a closer made more sense. Get your best guy out there in tough situations with runners on base. That's how I manage it in simulations like Strat-O-Matic or Whatifsports.
That said, real life isn't a simulation game and there is some psychology to consider. Pitchers are more comfortable and may perform better if they know what inning they're going to be called on and get into a comfortable routine.
Of course either way, you have to have a deep bullpen or you're in trouble. The Royals are going to have to a tough time getting through their non-Soria innings no matter when they are.
That said, real life isn't a simulation game and there is some psychology to consider. Pitchers are more comfortable and may perform better if they know what inning they're going to be called on and get into a comfortable routine.
Of course either way, you have to have a deep bullpen or you're in trouble. The Royals are going to have to a tough time getting through their non-Soria innings no matter when they are.
Eephus
Footballguy
The Sabermetric 
community seems to think not. I've read a few articles (but can't find them now) that basically argue that the top relievers should be used in high leverage situations, where preventing a run has the most impact on the game's win probability. When the closer enters in the top of the 9th with a three run lead, the win probability for the home team is already high.
But pitchers aren't a compilation of their stats. I think Spartans hits it when he says you have to build a pen around defined roles. If pitchers know what situations they'll be used in, they may be more comfortable and confident in that role.
The conventional wisdom is pretty well entrenched now. Pitchers like the status quo because Saves=$$$. Managers and pitching coach are more inclined to do what everyone else does to avoid criticism. The current model has been around for 20+ years since Eckersley, but it was only a decade before that guys like Gossage and Sutter were used differently. I know fantasy players hate committees but I'm surprised more managers don't go that route when there isn't an obvious stopper. Maybe they figure it's easier to find one guy than three. Maybe if KC brings Soria in for the 7th and they still lose, the fans and media will blame Trey Hillman.
Now that I think about it, the Bill James historical Abstract had a lengthy essay about this subject.
community seems to think not. I've read a few articles (but can't find them now) that basically argue that the top relievers should be used in high leverage situations, where preventing a run has the most impact on the game's win probability. When the closer enters in the top of the 9th with a three run lead, the win probability for the home team is already high.But pitchers aren't a compilation of their stats. I think Spartans hits it when he says you have to build a pen around defined roles. If pitchers know what situations they'll be used in, they may be more comfortable and confident in that role.
The conventional wisdom is pretty well entrenched now. Pitchers like the status quo because Saves=$$$. Managers and pitching coach are more inclined to do what everyone else does to avoid criticism. The current model has been around for 20+ years since Eckersley, but it was only a decade before that guys like Gossage and Sutter were used differently. I know fantasy players hate committees but I'm surprised more managers don't go that route when there isn't an obvious stopper. Maybe they figure it's easier to find one guy than three. Maybe if KC brings Soria in for the 7th and they still lose, the fans and media will blame Trey Hillman.
Now that I think about it, the Bill James historical Abstract had a lengthy essay about this subject.
Please See Mine
Footballguy
I linked that James essay here once, but I can't find it now.The Sabermetriccommunity seems to think not. I've read a few articles (but can't find them now) that basically argue that the top relievers should be used in high leverage situations, where preventing a run has the most impact on the game's win probability. When the closer enters in the top of the 9th with a three run lead, the win probability for the home team is already high. But pitchers aren't a compilation of their stats. I think Spartans hits it when he says you have to build a pen around defined roles. If pitchers know what situations they'll be used in, they may be more comfortable and confident in that role.The conventional wisdom is pretty well entrenched now. Pitchers like the status quo because Saves=$$$. Managers and pitching coach are more inclined to do what everyone else does to avoid criticism. The current model has been around for 20+ years since Eckersley, but it was only a decade before that guys like Gossage and Sutter were used differently. I know fantasy players hate committees but I'm surprised more managers don't go that route when there isn't an obvious stopper. Maybe they figure it's easier to find one guy than three. Maybe if KC brings Soria in for the 7th and they still lose, the fans and media will blame Trey Hillman.Now that I think about it, the Bill James historical Abstract had a lengthy essay about this subject.
pollardsvision
Footballguy
I understand the arguments against it, but in general, yes, I think the best reliever should be the closer. I say that with the caveat that because, in a perfect world, you've got some lights out arms leading up to a closer who has both great stuff and the mindset to handle closing.
The KC example really doesn't mean much. Ideally, you've got a number of good arms in the pen. If you only have one arm you trust in the pen, you're screwed no matter who you have closing games.
The main reason I think the "closer role" is a good idea is because I think blown leads in the 9th can be very demoralizing for a team. It still amazes me that, over a 162 game season, division and wild card races tend to be so close and that the difference between and 80 and a 90 win season is large. When you have a W in the bag, blowing it in the 9th really is a complete disaster. It's bad for the clubhouse and it's bad for the season when how 10 games swing will determine the entire thing. You must close out wins when you've got them on the table.
Maybe it's not always the absolute best reliever, but I think teams must have a guy they trust to finish off close wins.
The KC example really doesn't mean much. Ideally, you've got a number of good arms in the pen. If you only have one arm you trust in the pen, you're screwed no matter who you have closing games.
The main reason I think the "closer role" is a good idea is because I think blown leads in the 9th can be very demoralizing for a team. It still amazes me that, over a 162 game season, division and wild card races tend to be so close and that the difference between and 80 and a 90 win season is large. When you have a W in the bag, blowing it in the 9th really is a complete disaster. It's bad for the clubhouse and it's bad for the season when how 10 games swing will determine the entire thing. You must close out wins when you've got them on the table.
Maybe it's not always the absolute best reliever, but I think teams must have a guy they trust to finish off close wins.
Leroy Hoard
Footballguy
Think how different it would be if baseball was like the other major sports and you could sub a guy more than once per game.
the moops
Footballguy
5 hour long games instead? 6+ if it was Yanks vs Sox?
Leroy Hoard
Footballguy
If we are going to make it like other sports we are going to need a pitch clock too.
Softballguy
Footballguy
These are the two biggest reasons teams do not use their best pitchers in the highest leverage situations, despite the increase in wins they would enjoy.
igbomb
Footballguy
I've yet to see any objective analysis that suggests the best reliever should be used as they are today.And the point of how critical not blowing games is to a team's success, a blown game in the seventh hurts just as much in the standings as a blown game in the ninth. And I don't buy the demoralizing impact. A loss when you're leading hurts no less when it's your setup man allowing the runs than when it's your closer.
boubucarow
Footballguy
The only arguments I see for using a closer only in save situations are the possible psyche pluses of each pitcher knowing their role and inning and the risk of having to warm up your top reliever multiple times in a game only to see the threat derailed before he could see action.
That said, I want to see Marmol in the game when the bases are loaded in a close game in the 6th inning or later.
That said, I want to see Marmol in the game when the bases are loaded in a close game in the 6th inning or later.
Years ago, it was never that way. If the "game situation" was in the 7th inning, that's when you brought in the fireman to put out the fire. Not much of a fire when one has a two run lead and a guy comes in with nobody on base. Guys like Sutter and Gossage used to pitch 2, or even 3 full innings.
Similar threads
