Principles behind a bullpen collapse

Master Index of Archived Threads

Principles behind a bullpen collapse

Edgy DC
Dec 01 2008 07:42 AM
Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Dec 01 2008 08:20 AM

Some observations that can inform how the Mets build their next bullpen and how they use their next bullpen. Little of this is new, in this space or elsewhere, but it might be useful side by side.

<ol><li>Increased specialization tends to lead to increased specialization. This is something more historically observed in batters. You observe a large platoon split difference in a player's performance, you use him more in those situations, then the less beneficial matchups become more unfamiliar and challenging to him, and the difference becomes more pronounced. This is historically a reason managers use for not wanting to use young players in platoons. It can lead to arguments of not wanting to use young pitchers as specialists.

Anyhow, the difference grows more pronounced, so the usage grows even more specialized. This can be applied to the likes of Joe Smith and Pedro Feliciano, and Chad Bradford before. They tried to resist this trend with Scott Schoeneweis, but the demand that he be used as a specialist appears to be irresistable.</li>

<li>Increased specialization tends to lead to increased usage. If you can only be trusted for a few outs at a time, it's going to take more pitchers to close out a game. If two different pitchers throw 80 innings, but one did it in 58 games and the other did it in 91, the first guy had the lighter workload getting more rest between his appearances. The Mets, six weeks out from the end of the season (about the time the breakdown started in earnest), had three of the top ten relievers in terms of appearances. Then they added Washington horse Luis Ayala. Their finishing rankings looked like this:

<table border="1" bordercolor="black" cellpadding="5" cellspacing="0"><tr bgcolor="black"><td>Rank</td><td>Met</td><td>Games</td></tr><tr><td>1</td><td>Pedro Feliciano</td><td>86</td></tr><tr><td>4</td><td>Joe Smith</td><td>92</td></tr><tr><td>5</td><td>Luis Ayala</td><td>81</td></tr><tr><td>7</td><td>Aaron Heilman</td><td>78</td></tr><tr><td>21</td><td>Scot Schoeneweis</td><td>73</td></tr></table>
All had more appearances than innings. Yeah, Heilman, too. That is unsustainable.</li>

<li>The theory of alternating years of success. This may be bupkis, but Omar Minaya invoked it when discussing who he's looking at for the Mets bullpen. The theory goes that, when a relief pitcher does well, his workload tends to go up, leading to increased stress on his arm. The next year he's recovering from all that work, he tends not to do as well, but his workload drops, allowing him to come back stronger the next year.

I remember, as a kid, noting how for seemingly eight or nine years, Gene Garber and Rick Camp would alternate good years and bad years in the Atlanta bullpen, occasionally replacing each other as the staff anchor. That went on into my teenaged years of increased awareness. When Tom Gorman gave up a homer to Camp in the marathon July 4 game, and came off the field shaking his head and saying "I never knew Gene Garber had that kind of power," I was right with him. They had become indistinguishable.</li>

<li>Whistling past the graveyard. With Guillermo Mota in 2007, and again with Aaron Heilman in 2008, the Mets got no real period of sustained performance, but they each time pinned their hopes on performances of previous seasons to continuing sending their guy out there. Foolish. Some here advocated throwing a start or two to Heilman, some advocated trading him, arranging a temporary demotion (and risking a waiver claim even if he consented), or pushing him to the back of the bullpen. None of these was perhaps the answer, but denial certainly wasn’t, and they waited until September before enacting this last option, but the breakdown of everybody else still forced him onto the mound in some key situations including the most painful ball four since Kenny Rogers.</li>

<li>Too many veterans leads to too few options. I don’t think the 2008 Mets were particularly guilty in this regard, but it allows you a lot of room to make corrections when no more than three or four members of your bullpen are (a) optionable, or (b) releasable.</li></ol>All that said, I’m not sure what they should do. I like redundancy, and I like opening seasons with Manny Aybar-types fighting for their lives, and with Parnells and Nieses and Kunzes fighting to take jobs away from them, and given every chance to do so.

I also am clearly growing increasingly suspicious about increased specialization. Even when it works, it leads to bloated bullpens that leave us with poor hitting but versatile (and short) benches, bat-wise. Let the pitchers be versatile.

Benjamin Grimm
Dec 01 2008 08:08 AM

I agree.

And the other thing that happens when many pitchers appear in many games is that many games have many pitchers appearing in them. Which means more games where you have fewer options in the late innings.

If I'm a manager, I'm going to try to get at least 7 innings from my starter, then use one pitcher for the eighth and one for the ninth. And the guys I use in the eighth and ninth tonight won't necessarily be the guys I went to yesterday or that I'll go to tomorrow.

And if I get only 6 from my starter, then I'll try to use only three relievers. (I know things don't always go according to plan, but that would be the goal.)

Pitchers want to know their roles? Here's what I'd tell them: When you take the mound at the start of an inning, your job is to get three outs. Don't make me come out there and get you. Finish the inning.

metirish
Dec 01 2008 08:14 AM

I hope Jerry Manuel continues to push his starters to pitch deeper into games , I like that and even if it's to keep him in to try and that one extra out where normally he might have been pulled I think helps the pen out . I don't like the idea of the specialist , mainly for the reasons given above.

EDIT - Having said all that Manuel did go a bit pen crazy towards the end of the season .

bmfc1
Dec 01 2008 08:19 AM

BG correctly said: Pitchers want to know their roles? Here's what I'd tell them: When you take the mound at the start of an inning, your job is to get three outs. Don't make me come out there and get you. Finish the inning.

And that's all you need to know and, more important, what they need to know. Get just 3 stinkin' outs. If you can't do that, you shouldn't be on a major league roster. Don't worry about who is up, who is on deck, and who is warming up. Everybody in the bullpen should be capable of getting 3 major league hitters out, regardless of whether or not they bat lefty or right.

Edgy DC
Dec 01 2008 08:29 AM
Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Dec 01 2008 08:48 AM

I don't think what side a guy hits from isn't the main issue with role assignments as much as the part of the game and the run differential. I also think players aren't complaining about it as often as it may seem. I recall Wagner complaining on behalf of his pen mates after 2007, perhaps concluding that none of them had the juice to complain for themselves.

I think the issue is that relievers build their daily routine to hit a psychological peak as the situation they tend to be used in approaches.

Trying to respect that may be over-babying them, but Whitey Herzog certainly did it. His policy was that, if a pitcher warmed up twice and hadn't been called on, his part of the game clearly had passed, and he should shower and report to the dugout. He might be needed in extra innings or other extraordinary circumstances, but he had otherwise done his job without entering the game.

Psychology seems like a niggling concern from our objective distance, but it's part of a manager's daily work.

Rockin' Doc
Dec 01 2008 08:30 AM

I agree whole heartedly with the position you are both advocating. I agree that players in general, and pitchers in particular, are pampered in today's game. Complete games are virtually a thing of the past and relievers going more than three outs is increasingly more rare. Too often, managers burn two to three pitchers just to get through one inning.

Maybe I'm old fashioned, but I think the game of baseball has become too damn specialized. I like going with the hot hand and having the best available pitcher on the mound in crucial situations when the game is on the line. Often, this means letting your ace starter stay in the game or using your closer for more than just save opportunities.

duan
Dec 01 2008 09:27 AM

one hunch that if have is there's a real issue with the lack of multiple innings that the managers draw from relievers.
if you're leading 4-1 in the 7th inning and pull the starter, I'm up for trying to squeeze 2 1/3 from one guy.

Too often we fall into the one inning 12 pitch trap. If a guy has a successful 1st inning I'm wondering how often does he have a successful 2nd one. anyone got any stats out there?

John Cougar Lunchbucket
Dec 01 2008 09:36 AM

I'm also going to say that the offense's habit of taking an early lead then napping for a few innings every night was a factor. Sure in sum they did the job, but seems like they were capable of more blowouts than they recorded.

It would take only a few well-timed runs in a few well-placed games to give the pen guys a breather when they needed them.

Sadly I don't think the Mets are going to be the team that challenges the CW when it comes to pen use, in any sense. If Omar truly beleves that relievers are enigmatic and unpredictable, then he really should stop signing guys to 3- and 4-year contracts and trading away their would-be challengers.

Edgy DC
Dec 01 2008 09:49 AM

That last sentence is gold.

Vic Sage
Dec 01 2008 10:10 AM

while i agree that specialization is not a good strategy in terms of constructing a bullpen, I do think its appropriate when deploying one... you have to put the guys you have in situations in which they are most likely to succeed. So, if Omar gives Manuel a similarly constructed bullpen in 09, then asking Schoenweis to get out RHers, or Joe Smith to get out LHers, is just asking for trouble.

Edgy DC
Dec 01 2008 10:12 AM

Important distinction, Vic from New Rochelle. Thanks for writing.

smg58
Dec 01 2008 11:14 AM

The Mets pen the last two seasons is a case of damned if you do, damned if you don't. Randolph tried hard not to make specialists out of his relievers, and the strategy backfired because that's all that guys like Schoeneweis and Feliciano could really be. Manuel opted to play by the numbers, which worked for a while but not forever.

The bottom line: the pen was poorly constructed. You need multiple guys who can give you a significant quantity of innings, and we didn't have them. Heilman's implosion certainly didn't help, but if you buy Edgy's point 3 then a guy can only give you 80+ quality relief innings for so many seasons without some sort of hiccup, and he should not have been taken for granted. The other guy Minaya was counting on for innings going into this year was Jorge Sosa. That's it. Keep in mind that Sosa pitched 20 innings during his first month in the pen (late July to late August) in 07. His arm fell off in September, and he didn't recover for the 08 season. The rest of the Mets pen was too specialized and/or ineffective for anybody to take on a workhorse's role.

I understand the appeal of demanding more from the starters, but the fact that Santana had his knee operated on immediately after the season tells me he was asked for more than he could really handle. The Mets don't make a playoff run otherwise, but we really want the luxury of not having to work Santana that hard this year.

I agree with Edgy's comment about redundancy, and I think we're in a good position in that regard going into this season. You could have Stokes, Sanchez, Stoner, Parnell, Kunz, Vargas, plus maybe one or two minor-league contract signings competing for spots 5, 6, and 7 in the pen. That looks good to me. I think Vargas could fill Darren Oliver's role if given the chance. And it assures that Buffalo will be well stocked if and when a need comes up.

Joe Smith should be fine for another spot. He's still young, and I see no reason why his performance against lefties can't improve.

That tells me we have three holes to fill: a closer, obviously, and two workhorse/set-up guys. Heilman could bounce back, but I think it's becoming clear that he won't get the opportunity here even if he wanted it. And I think Feliciano and Schoeneweis need to be moved along. Certainly one of them has to go, at any rate.

Vic Sage
Dec 01 2008 11:22 AM

]Joe Smith should be fine for another spot. He's still young, and I see no reason why his performance against lefties can't improve
if you can see no reason, you're not looking very closely. Generally, side-armers and sub-mariners (of the non-Atlantean kind) have a harder time getting out the opposite side hitters, because of the angle that the ball is coming at them from. At least, that's what i've read. I imagine there have been exceptions. Kent Tekulve was a closer.
]That tells me we have three holes to fill: a closer, obviously, and two workhorse/set-up guys

so, that's the top 3 guys. And other than that, Mrs. Lincoln, how did you like the play?

Edgy DC
Dec 01 2008 11:23 AM

="smg58":16jxddmm]Joe Smith should be fine for another spot. He's still young, and I see no reason why his performance against lefties can't improve.[/quote:16jxddmm]

Your other comments taken as valuable, one reason is the natural tendency of sidewinders to be more effective in same-side matchups.

You know, unless you're Walter Johnson.

MFS62
Dec 02 2008 06:56 AM

Walter Johnson was a side-armer?
I never knew that.
(Or were you using him as an example of someone who was unhittable in his era?)

Anyhow, back to topic.
I believe that overuse of the bullpen is almost a self-fulfilling prophesy.
The more you overwork guys, the more tired their arms.
The more tired their arms, the less effective they become (except for sinkerballers according to baseball "lore")
The less effective they become, the more relievers you have to use in a game.
The more relievers you use, the more they are overworked.
etc.
etc.

The way to break the cycle is, IMO, for the manager and pitching coach to work out a plan for each pitcher, and the bullpen as a whole, that allows the pitchers to stay fresh. It seemed to me that Manuel looked like he was trying to settle into such a plan at the end of last season. It may not have worked, but when he took over, the releivers' arms were already dragging from years of random abuse under Willie.

Later

Edgy DC
Dec 02 2008 07:13 AM

="MFS62":1ds8ipi2]Walter Johnson was a side-armer?[/quote:1ds8ipi2]

Totally.

<img src="http://www.geocities.com/colosseum/arena/5866/johns.jpg">

Hardest thrower of his time and he didn't even have gravity on his side.

Nymr83
Dec 02 2008 07:44 AM

I'm with you 100% on #1, 2, 4 &, 5 on your list.
Particularly #5 which I think is often overlooked. The less guys you have with major league contracts and high salaries the less roster spots you have locked down. Its fine to pay for guys with a long track record but bringing a guy in because of 1 year of success is kinda stupid when you could bring in 5 guys at league minimum and have the flexibility to call one up from AAA when another is stinking up the joint.

I don't agree with you 100% on #3, though I would agree that success tends to lead to overuse which may lead to suckiness.

Edgy DC
Dec 02 2008 08:09 AM

I don't agree with me 100% on any of it to tell you the truth, which is why I'm so wishy-washy in my conclusion. They're observable phenomena anecdotally, but I can only speculate how much a broad data set can reinforce them as patterns.