GDT 4/3/19 Philadelphia Phillies (Nola) @ Washington Nationals (Sánchez, An)

[schillingfan]

Klentak should just stop signing ANY veteran relievers. He's not good at it.

Wade and Amaro weren't any better. GM's shouldn't sign veteran relievers to big money for more than one year, period. Relief pitchers are like placekickers. They lose it just like that.’s

More likely it's the Curse of the Phillies Veteran Free Agent Reliever Signee.

I remember saying as far back as Wade’s trade for Turk Wendell that relievers are not magic bullets, but are unicorns. If a reliever is having a god year, the manager will overuse him, because relievers are fungible. A reliever pitching poorly won’t be used. So either is a gamble, as you might turn coal to diamonds signing a reliever off the junk pile. Wade had a penchant for veteran relievers who had good years. Actually I believe in the mixture of your team’s. Young relief arms, “proven” veterans and junk, throw them against the wall and see who sticks. In that vein, I suspect a bad year from Seranthony due to sore arm.

[donaldorc]

because relievers are fungible

I absolutely knew that schillingfan couldn't comment on relievers without using this phrase. I remember her using that phrase ever since I first joined this board, and that's been quite a few years ago. CHEERS shillingfan!

[zambonir]

that one goes all the way back to the PHILS Listserv. I wonder who the first Phillies reliever was to earn the term.

As I've said more than a few times in response to SF though, I don't think it's true any more. They are all still very variable (from year to year and sometimes month to month) but the model of relievers all being failed starters who are interchangeable, and the notion that a Yacksel Rios is no better or worse than a David Robertson, is not holding water in this era of more elite relief arms, shorter starts, and different patterns of reliever usage. The good years followed by bad years theory remains a compelling anecdotal trend though. And the bottom/middle of any bullpen is certainly fungible (though so are most 5th starters).

[schillingfan]

I call them fungible because they are so variable and they usually aren’t elite. Nowadays most managers protect starter arms because they consider them more valuable and GMs pay them more. Managers don’t seem to sorry about breaking relievers through overuse, not only because they get a security from using them, but believe they are fairly replaceable. This may be changing if managers are starting to worry about overuse of reliever arms.

[zambonir]

I do think they are fungible in that sense. If a Ken Giles (or a Seranthony) crashes and burns after a few years, you find the next one. And the same goes for the vets and lefties. But a handful of guys are elite, some of whom are closers and some not.

[Austinfan]

Relief pitchers tend to be more variable than SPs who in turn are more variable than position players.
Which is why you pay top position players, but avoid long-term high money deals to pitchers.

But some are more consistent than others, Lidge was a one year wonder but Madson had a good run from 2008 to 2017.

[zambonir]

Lidge was hardly a one-year wonder, we just didn't have him as long (or when he was young). Madson had his valleys too (including trying to replace Lidge in 2009) and we punted on him right when he was getting older (albeit to sign another older guy who also had a few years left in him).

A big part of the reason they are so variable is the margin is so thin. If you're talking a closer, a guy who saves 90% is good and a guy who saves 85% isn't (especially considering teams win 95% of all games they lead after 8, though most of those aren't save situations obviously). A Hector Neris who faces four batters per outing is great, and still good if he faces five most of the time, but terrible if he allows an extra-base hit.

A lot of it is just the sample size. When a reliever is great one year and bad the next it could be overuse or a minor injury or mechanical change but could also just be pure luck, as 10 mediocre to bad games would be enough to skew an entire WHIP (and also skew perceptions since we only remember the bad ones with someone like Hunter or Morgan). We expect our hitters to fail 70% of the time and our starters definitely fail 20-25% of the time but any one individual reliever has to do a lot better than that.