2019 Phillies Season Discussion

[schillingfan]

Not discounting statistical data at all. I’d be interested in a polling of relievers that addressed the issue as well. I actually agree with Julio that baseball needs to work to change the perception. One statistic we have is inherited runners scored. To me that’s a really good indicator of how good a reliever is in pressure situations. If relievers were rewarded for this stat, I imagine you’d have a different usage pattern. We could call this elite group of relievers “cleaners” who come in to take care of other pitchers’ messes.

[andyb]

There is probably a stat based on WPA (win probability added) that would capture the importance of each situation along with the results.

I generally fall in the closers are overrated camp. To close successfully over time you need to be a good pitcher. Jeanmar Gomez was not. But once you have the stuff AND show you are good in 7th and 8th inning pressure situations, then most good relievers can close. I actually like the way Kapler runs his closers. A team should still have one. They also should have a couple of other options and be prepared to use the closer early if necessary.

[julio]

But I think there's an argument to be had for a RP who has shown success in high leverage situations to be the guy you bring in to such situations in the 6th or 7th as well.

Agreed. If your club cannot deal effectively with high-leverage situations in innings prior to the 9th, you're often going to have no use for your "closer." The pitcher who gets you out of a bases-loaded, one out jam is under just as much stress (easily) as the closer who has to "face the ninth" with a lead, with nobody on base.

If the argument is that relievers somehow perceive opening the ninth inning, with a lead, as more stressful than trying to shut down a game-threatening rally in progress... well, it's really disturbing to me. The only way that can be the case, IMHO, is if the reliever is only concerned about his own stats, his own "reputation," not about the team...so he's more worried about blowing an easy save than he is about rescuing his team from a likely loss.

I'm sure there are relief pitchers who have that mindset. Frankly, I don't want them on my team.

[schillingfan]

That’s pretty harsh, considering it’s been the baseball mindset for a few decades, and reflected by the pay.

[zambonir]

Yes Hector got himself a day off today thanks to Alvarez and Velasquez.

The biggest perception here is not the players, it's us (well, some of us). I mean, Iglesias is a pretty good relief pitcher but what most Phillies phans likely perceived today was an ineffectual offense going down without a whimper in the 9th. They weren't shut down by a great pitcher in a high-leverage situation (even though a one-run lead is certainly very slim!). Had that been Neris on the mound with a Reds player getting a one-out hit people would have been dreading the next AB.

And we also overrate situations where win-probability (or loss-probability) is actually very low. The Phillies had a 10% chance of winning the game after Hoskins' made the first out. It doubled (i.e. to 20%) when Realmuto got in. But at no point was it actually a pressure-cooker for the Reds' closer.

It's hard to change years of history and culture but if your manager and pitching coach gets all the players on the same page, their perceptions can change. Ironically, the depressed player salaries of the last few years is probably helping too - you can't say that Robertson and Miller lost money because they weren't closers, their role has been more valued, and closers less valued, and we saw that play out on the market.

But even so (as per SF's reply) you can't blame players for wanting saves when they get paid more for them than they would for 7th inning holds, and I also can't blame Pat Neshek, at his age, for preferring to keep doing it the way he always did it (i.e. he wanted to know his inning/role would be the same most nights). Eventually the game will catch up.

[julio]

But even so (as per SF's reply) you can't blame players for wanting saves when they get paid more for them than they would for 7th inning holds, and I also can't blame Pat Neshek, at his age, for preferring to keep doing it the way he always did it (i.e. he wanted to know his inning/role would be the same most nights). Eventually the game will catch up.

One can choose not to "blame" players for attitudes that are perfectly understandable, given the game's culture... but still build one's roster around players whose attitudes are different than thal.

Management's task is to use the available players in ways that maximize their effectiveness - including whatever psychological limitations those players may have. In the short run, that is. Longer term, management's task is also to obtain players who have as few such limitations as possible.

[zambonir]

Management's task is to use the available players in ways that maximize their effectiveness - including whatever psychological limitations those players may have. In the short run, that is. Longer term, management's task is also to obtain players who have as few such limitations as possible.

Easier to fit players with psychological limitations under the luxury tax.

Speaking of luxury, it's a great one to even have this kind of granular argument. You only have them when a really good team is coming up short in really narrow ways. This team actually has bigger problems right now, an actual lack of healthy talent, but is still mostly winning.

[phillychuck]

One factor that really affects our opinion of relievers is that somehow we expect the bullpen to always be perfect. Give them a 3-2 lead in the sixth and if we lose 4-3 it is somehow a bullpen failure, rather than a failure of our offense to at least score 1 run over the last 3 innings. A good bullpen with a 3.00 overall ERA will give up at least the tying run over 3 IP--it will sometimes yield 2 runs, too, and sometimes 0. But only sometimes 0, even with good pitching.

[Lucky_Beagle]

One factor that really affects our opinion of relievers is that somehow we expect the bullpen to always be perfect. Give them a 3-2 lead in the sixth and if we lose 4-3 it is somehow a bullpen failure, rather than a failure of our offense to at least score 1 run over the last 3 innings. A good bullpen with a 3.00 overall ERA will give up at least the tying run over 3 IP--it will sometimes yield 2 runs, too, and sometimes 0. But only sometimes 0, even with good pitching.

maybe we need a new stat...something along the lines of ERA while in a save situation (similar to avg with Runner is scoring position, then we can break it down and have an ERA for 1 run games similar to % of scoring runner from 3rd with less than 2 outs)...I guess this is why I am sometimes not upset when the closer gives up a run when the team is up by 2 or 3 because I know they are going to give up some and I hope they aren't in a 1 run game.

[bkeich]

maybe we need a new stat..

Simple stat...
Percentage of time a reliever doesnt give up a run and goes 1 IP.

80% or higher - very good
67% - 80% - Good
50% - 67% - ok
<50% poor

But this leads to PC's point. Relievers are far from perfect (actually all pitcher). It is hard to succeed more than 2/3 of the time.

[andyb]

We face 3 Arizona rookie pitchers in a row this week. Need to win this series if not sweep.

[David_Criss]

Tom Eschelmen has been traded to Baltimore for future considerations.

[California_Dreamin]

In regards to the attempted steal of home yesterday, long time Phillie phans like allentown, julio and I are quite familiar with this tactic. Bryce Harper, please introduce yourself to Willie Davis...and Chico Ruiz.

[el-pietro]

Jay Bruce is NL player of the week.

Matt Breen (matt_breen)

Matt Breen (matt_breen)

In other news Seranthony is going to see Dr. James Andrews

Matt Breen (matt_breen)

[allentown]

Welcome back CD; I haven't seen a post from you in a while.

[LoneStarPhan]

I also am happy to see CD post again. I miss his insight and historical stories.

Yes, I also was thinking of Chico Ruiz. I had the game on radio while studying, as was my custom that fall. I was a senior in college and had just been married that month, so I was out of the dorms and in our own apartment near campus. I was of course upset about the 1-0 loss on a steal of home. My memory, which is not what it once was, is saying that Art Mahaffey was pitching for the Phillies that night. But that loss didn't seem so significant at the time. The season was almost over and I was finally getting confident that the Phillies were home free. There were only 11 games left in the season, but as the losses continued to pile up, my anxiety continued to grow.

I heard earlier today on XM radio that the Phillies were getting international signing money for Eshelman. Not sure of any other details.

[California_Dreamin]

Thanks allentown, much appreciated. I am still around but am really having a hard time acclimating myself to the new norm of major league baseball. I am convinced [simply my opinion] that one of the main reasons so many Phillie relievers are having arm problems is the way Kapler uses[or misuses] them so much.

I know the data is still being studied but everything we used to talk about here in regards to relievers was A] the more relievers you use in a game the more likely at least one of them will fail and B] it is not a great idea to use relievers on multiple days in a row. Yet, these have become the new norm and I lament the loss of the workhorse starting pitcher. There is almost no room for ace pitchers duals anymore, the days of Seaver vs Carlton are gone with the wind.

I also am no fan of the 3 true outcomes theory, this goes against everything I learned as a ballplayer. As someone who saw the hit and run, stolen base, hitting behind the runner and strategic sacrifice bunt as key components of what I have always believed was almost the perfect sport [ 90 ft to the bases, 27 outs, no time limit] I am simply dismayed at today's game.

And I cannot believe that history will show that hitting .300 really wasn't a great thing, my gosh this pretty much has has diminished at least 50% of my childhood heroes.

I guess I just think too much about a game I have loved since I could put on a baseball glove and constantly ask myself if Abner Doubleday [or whoever invented baseball!] would enjoy the game's evolution today. I don't believe he would.

Look, I still prefer Phillie wins to losses and still wax poetically in my mind about some hidden Latin gem that Uncle Sal will sign with this new international money the Phils got today but...I admit [again my opinion only] I don't think baseball is a better game today with the 5 inning starting pitchers, a new reliever every inning, walks being as good as a hit [not when the winning run is at 3rd base with two outs in the 9th] and strikeouts being the new norm.

I am trying so hard to get used to it, and Lord knows, the Phis certainly needed to get into the 21st Century sometime soon but the game has become a bit too computer driven for me.

When I need a historical baseball fix I simply go to retrosheet and that allays my yearnings for another day...for the moment.

[BostonRoss]

I’m currently reading Pennant Race, a diary of the 1961 Reds season by Jim Brisbane, a reliever on that team. He described a similar play where Vada Pinson stole home in a similar situation where one of the Reds’ top hitters was at the plate. (I don’t have the book in front of me, but I don’t think the hitter was Robinson in this case.)

The pitch beat Pinson, and the Reds thought he pulled a boneheaded play—until his slide knocked the ball out of the catcher’s mitt.

I wonder what Vada was thinking when he saw Ruiz attempting the same thing three years later.

[jimbomill]

I lament the loss of the workhorse starting pitcher. There is almost no room for ace pitchers duals anymore, the days of Seaver vs Carlton are gone with the wind.

...

And I cannot believe that history will show that hitting .300 really wasn't a great thing

Amen CD. I agree with you on the Three True Outcomes as it blatantly misses the HBP and hence is disproven

[Austinfan]

I think you're overthinking it:

1) the workhorse pitchers threw in the high 80, low 90s, like Irvin, and could throw 120 pitches because they weren't pushing their arms - a few exceptions like Randy Johnson and Nolan Ryan, but they were so strong they'd be running up the same pitch counts in today's game. The 5 inning starters now are the guys with the Ks, the art of pitching to contact and getting ahead of hitters is returning because those are the pitchers, if they have good stuff, who'll go 6-7 innings or more on a regular basis.

2) Hitting .300 still has value, it's just understood better, .300 with a good batting eye and alley power is Yelich, .300 with no walks and power simply wasn't that valuable. There were three outcome players in the "good old days," how else would you describe Joe Morgan and Mike Schmidt?

3) RPs always broke down, Lidge? The difference is there are more RPs pitching more innings, so not only do more break down, but because bullpens are used more, those breakdowns have a bigger impact (when a long reliever went on IR, it was worthy of no more than a shoulder shrug). As bullpens are used more, I expect more RPs to fit the pattern of "twice through starters," that is, guys with more than the FB/slider combo who can pitch 2-3 innings on a regular basis instead of just throwing velo for an inning.