I've forgotten the goal for teams playing MLB games

[twinstalker]

Is it to participate? Are trophies given to every player who gets in a game? To full teams? I watch the Twins, and I have a real hard time figuring it out. Now, I was really tired this afternoon and kept dozing off, but I could swear the Twins were fully participating in a game today, and I'm pretty sure they once again had no ulterior motives. At least I didn't see any.

 

Now I could be wrong, it might have been my sleep daze, but I may have actually seen the Twins try to lose, but I'm sure that wasn't a conscious decision. I've seen this before. Ron Gardenhire actually gives away outs so that he can limit his team's scoring, and he's done that many times. I've often wondered why he would lessen the Twins' chances of scoring runs, but he does it. Recklessly, from what I can tell. No factual information behind him, it's like he subscribes to a religion where only faith is required.

 

Friday was another example, a different example. Mr. Gardenhire had many options for whom to pitch in a certain special situation. The bases were loaded, there was one out in the 8th inning, up by 1. One of the options he had was his best pitcher: Glen Perkins. Another was one of his worst pitchers: Tyler Robertson. The former was well-rested, the latter had pitched the day before and had just gotten off a spring where he'd given up nearly two hits and walks per inning.

 

Gardenhire chose the worse pitcher in the most critical of situations. Why did he do this? I have wracked my tiny brain, and all I can come up with is that he wanted his best pitcher to get a "Save." What is a Save? A Save is an artifact of games that are won. They themselves do not cause a game to be won, but when a win is awarded, frequently a Save is award as well. There is nothing special about a Save. One doesn't push you ahead in the standings, such as an overtime loss does in the NHL.

 

I have done extensive research, and all I can find is that a Save confers special acknowledgement on the pitcher it is awarded to. In contrast, an Out gotten by a pitcher actually is something that will yield a higher probability of a win (and a Save, coincidentally). One might say that the decision on which pitcher to choose can really come down to this: Is your goal to try to get a critical out that would more likely result in winning the game at hand, or is your goal to increase the probability that an arbitrary acknowledgement is conferred upon one of your options?

 

I dug through the archive for seconds upon seconds to take another look at the situation Mr. Gardenhire had in front of him. He had five outs to guarantee a win, and among other constraints, two of those out most likely had to come before two of the runners currently on base scored. His best pitcher might not have the easiest time getting all five outs, and possibly it might be decided to have another pitcher face the first righthanded bat of the 9th inning, thereby negating the awarding of the arbitrary acknowledgement on his best pitcher. So it wasn't as if he only had to think about getting one out.

 

Clearly, though, the highest leverage situation for this game was at this critical decision point: bases juiced with one out in the 8th inning, up by one run. The game most likely was going to be won or lost there, depending on whether the Twins gave up 0, 1, or 2 runs.

 

 

• If the goal of the Twins in playing this MLB game is to win it, the decision of which pitcher to use would seem obvious.
  

 

 

• If the goal of playing the game is to decrease the chance your best reliever pitches in a game where he doesn't get award the arbitrary acknowledgement, the choice is also obvious.
  

 

 

• While not mathematically correct in every situation, in most cases, including this one, the choice of pitchers identifies the goal of the one making the decision. (i.e. Simpson's Paradox is unlikely to apply, stat geeks)
  

 

There's a leap there, and I'm hand-waving to get to my conclusion, but I'm pretty confident it's correct. I don't think Gardenhire is purposely trying to lose games, but I'm pretty sure he's ignorant when it comes to understanding what to do to win games. Many, many, many times over the course of a season, including Friday in the 8th inning.

[RIP BYTO]

Once again, Gardenhire is blinded by his pursuit of getting a player an individual stat at the expense of getting his team the more important stat which is the W. He can't be gone soon enough.

[drjim]

Fair points, but if you don't use Robertson in that situation there is no reason to have him on the roster (which might be the point anyways).

 

Robertson had been successful in a similar situation as recently as the day before against a comparable hitter.

[drjim]

Also, I'm not sure it is about pursuing stats as much as it about keeping pitchers in very specific roles.

[Old Twins Cap]

Game is on the line. You need a strikeout. Once the game was tied, there's no way he'll bring in Perkins. Short of a tie game though, it should be Perkins. I thought that Roenicke would get one, maybe two outs in the 8th and then bring in Perkins to pitch to Markakis. But, it all went terribly wrong. Would have been nice for Hendriks to go longer so as to save Pressly for later, but, we are seeing already how stretched a pitching staff can become against good-hitting teams. And the Tigers and O's are pretty good teams.

[stringer bell]

I agree that it is a lot more about roles than it is about using the best pitcher in the highest leverage situation. It is supposed to be Robertson's job to get lefty hitters out and he failed. Failure does happen, but I still don't think Robertson is going to be very successful in the LOOGy role, unless he can squeeze a little more out of his fastball.

[fairweather]

There is nothing wrong with asking Perkins to go 2 innings from time to time. When Burton is unavailable for the 8th and Perk is on multiple days rest there's no reason to anyone else working in a 1 RUN GAME. Believe me Perk won't blink if you ask him to do it. Perkins is driven, almost to the point of obsession, to be one of the best closers in baseball. I don't know if he can be that but if he fails it won't be for lack of preparation or confidence.

[snepp]

Closers can't be used before the 9th inning, and they can't be used in non-save situations, unless you're down 6 runs and "need to get some work in."

[jimbo92107]

Just put in Burton. He's your setup guy, and he's great. Otherwise, hell, bring up Michael Tonkin as your second option behind Burton. At least the kid throws flames. Tyler Robertson may have some mlb value, but he's so limited that I'd be tempted to replace him with somebody in the minors that simply throws hard, then work with that guy on simply spotting his heater to the four corners.

 

Seriously, as well as Tonkin pitched this spring, do you really think he would have done as poorly as Robertson?

[Joe A. Preusser]

I agree that it is a lot more about roles than it is about using the best pitcher in the highest leverage situation. It is supposed to be Robertson's job to get lefty hitters out and he failed. Failure does happen, but I still don't think Robertson is going to be very successful in the LOOGy role, unless he can squeeze a little more out of his fastball.

I couldn't agree more. Robertson's role is to get THAT strikeout in THAT situation. He won an amazing battle only the day before in the exact same situation, but now that he failed Gardy is suddenly throwing games? Come on, that's a stretch even for conspiracy theorists. Nothing wrong with asking Perk to get 5 outs, but why would you do that when the guy on the roster to pitch in that exact situation is available?

[Mr. Brooks]

I couldn't agree more. Robertson's role is to get THAT strikeout in THAT situation. He won an amazing battle only the day before in the exact same situation, but now that he failed Gardy is suddenly throwing games? Come on, that's a stretch even for conspiracy theorists. Nothing wrong with asking Perk to get 5 outs, but why would you do that when the guy on the roster to pitch in that exact situation is available?

 

If Tyler Robertson, of all people, is THE GUY on the roster whose job it is to come into perhaps the highest leverage situation possible, then Terry Ryan needs to be fired.

[Mike Sixel]

It should not be anyone's job other than your best pitcher. Bullpen use is stuck in the 90s. But to be a bit fair to the manager, he is not alone in this.

[Physics Guy]

I personally think Gardy has done a pretty good job thus far with the bullpen. His hands were tied as Burton was unavailable (I believe). The Twins tried not to use him in back-to-backs last year after coming off shoulder problems. He pitched the previous two days. If you want to argue about use of the bullpen, my issue is that Robertson should have been brought in to pitch to Markakis in the 6th instead of Duensing. Duensing has the track record and should be saved for higher leverage situations, like the at-bat against Davis. Let's be honest though, Hendriks put the team in a bind not making it out of the 5th. He has to be better or Gibson will be up by May.

[Mike Sixel]

Hendriks looks and sounds like a good reliever to me. Hope I am wrong, and he is a good starter.

[Mr. Brooks]

I personally think Gardy has done a pretty good job thus far with the bullpen. His hands were tied as Burton was unavailable (I believe). The Twins tried not to use him in back-to-backs last year after coming off shoulder problems. He pitched the previous two days. If you want to argue about use of the bullpen, my issue is that Robertson should have been brought in to pitch to Markakis in the 6th instead of Duensing. Duensing has the track record and should be saved for higher leverage situations, like the at-bat against Davis. Let's be honest though, Hendriks put the team in a bind not making it out of the 5th. He has to be better or Gibson will be up by May.

 

Or you could just put your best reliever (Perkins) in the highest leverage situation, instead of "saving" him for a situation which may never (and didn't) come.

 

The idiotic "save" stat has turned knowledgeable baseball minds into mindless slaves when it comes to late inning BP decisions.

[jokin]

Or you could just put your best reliever (Perkins) in the highest leverage situation, instead of "saving" him for a situation which may never (and didn't) come.

 

The idiotic "save" stat has turned knowledgeable baseball minds into mindless slaves when it comes to late inning BP decisions.

 

The "press" doesn't even question him much on this anymore, as they know it's . When queried on this topic, he typically gives the questioner a look of condescending derision and either he hands him the lineup card or cajoles him with eloquencies such as: "Come on, that's simple stuff! Gotta save the closer for only save situations!"

[notoriousgod71]

There's no reason Perkins couldn't be asked to get five outs. If he gives up the grand slam, then you can bring Robertson in to pitch the ninth.... oh wait there wouldn't be a ninth inning.

[Mr. Brooks]

There's no reason Perkins couldn't be asked to get five outs. If he gives up the grand slam, then you can bring Robertson in to pitch the ninth.... oh wait there wouldn't be a ninth inning.

 

He doesn't even necessarily need to get 5 outs.

If he gets out of that situation in the 8th, someone else can come into a lower leverage situation in the 9th.

[jokin]

He doesn't even necessarily need to get 5 outs.

If he gets out of that situation in the 8th, someone else can come into a lower leverage situation in the 9th.

 

But , but, that would be a clear and heretical violation of the (unwritten) Laws of Baseball.

[ashbury]

To win that game, a different tactical choice might have worked out better. In a long season, though, it's a goal to have everyone contribute. The manager has to balance these, and it's way too easy to second-guess by focusing on only one aspect.

[Badsmerf]

If it was me, I bring in Perkins. Gardy doesn't like doing that, especially at the beginning of the year. He did start to throw Nathan when needed in the 8th, so I'm guessing he is giving Robertson a chance here. I don't believe Robertson is going to make it in the MLB. Free Slama!!

On Hendriks. He needs Mauer to catch him IMO. He is a nibbler like Slowey. Instead of attacking hitters and getting ahead in counts and dropping that sick curve in the dirt, he tries to nibble and make the perfect pitch. When you are always working from behind in a count the odds are against you, whether pitcher or hitter. His curve was much better than I remembered it and if he can work in front of hitters I think he will he a lot of misses on it. This is why I believe Mauer will help him. I think Mauer calls a better game to begin with, but He is also better at blocking balls in the dirt (sans so far in 2013 which I'm attributing to the cold weather so far).

[bird]

So easy to second-guess this situation. Robertson got Cabrera out nicely the day before, right? Davis, playing at an almost unprecedented level, hit a fairly good pitch. So easy to assume Perkins would have gotten him out.

 

I get the whole high-leverage/best pitcher argument, but wonder if all these managers know something you critics don't know regarding the importance of keeping relief pitchers in familiar roles.

 

So, if Perkins comes in and gives up the tying run, who pitches the 9th? Robertson? A manager has to trust his guys to succeed at their roles. If guys like Hendriks, Robertson, Roenicke, and Fien fail too often, then we'll begin to see guys like Swarzak, Deduno, Perez, and Harden when they're ready to go.

[jokin]

So easy to second-guess this situation. Robertson got Cabrera out nicely the day before, right? Davis, playing at an almost unprecedented level, hit a fairly good pitch. 1) So easy to assume Perkins would have gotten him out.

 

I get the whole high-leverage/best pitcher argument, 2) but wonder if all these managers know something you critics don't know regarding the importance of keeping relief pitchers in familiar roles.

 

3) So, if Perkins comes in and gives up the tying run, who pitches the 9th? Robertson? A manager has to trust his guys to succeed at their roles. If guys like Hendriks, Robertson, Roenicke, and Fien fail too often, then we'll begin to see guys like Swarzak, Deduno, Perez, and Harden when they're ready to go.

 

1) I haven't seen anyone write anything about "assuming" anything. It's about probabilities here. You were correct in your previous sentence, Davis is the best hitter in baseball in the first week of the season, isn't it better strategy to have your best option out there to get their best hitter out?

 

2) Data please to back up your assertion of alleged "importance" of "role familiarity"? How about managers get "familiar" with leverage levels?

 

3) I nominate Glen Perkins to pitch the 8th and 9th. Burton would then be available to close today's game, if needed.

[Badsmerf]

1) I haven't seen anyone write anything about "assuming" anything. It's about probabilities here. You were correct in your previous sentence, Davis is the best hitter in baseball in the first week of the season, isn't it better strategy to have your best option out there to get their best hitter out?

 

2) Data please to back up your assertion of alleged "importance" of "role familiarity"? How about managers get "familiar" with leverage levels?

 

3) I nominate Glen Perkins to pitch the 8th and 9th. Burton would then be available to close today's game, if needed.

Correct on your points.

[bird]

1) I haven't seen anyone write anything about "assuming" anything. It's about probabilities here. You were correct in your previous sentence, Davis is the best hitter in baseball in the first week of the season, isn't it better strategy to have your best option out there to get their best hitter out?

 

2) Data please to back up your assertion of alleged "importance" of "role familiarity"? How about managers get "familiar" with leverage levels?

 

3) I nominate Glen Perkins to pitch the 8th and 9th. Burton would then be available to close today's game, if needed.

 

1. Of course Perkins is more likely to record an out in that situation, just not a sure-fire thing, which you fully grasp to be my point. Nitpick away.

 

2. Don't know of any data, which is why I don't have an opinion. Try it some time, jokin.

 

3. That sounds like a reasonable idea to me. Again, I just wonder why so many managers stick with one guy to close out a ballgame and prefer to keep him in this role. Hell, jokin, they're probably all wrong, and geez, who am I to question YOUR contrary opinion? That would be rather arrogant.

[jokin]

1. Of course Perkins is more likely to record an out in that situation, just not a sure-fire thing, which you fully grasp to be my point. Nitpick away.

 

2. Don't know of any data, which is why I don't have an opinion. Try it some time, jokin.

 

3. That sounds like a reasonable idea to me. Again, I just wonder why so many managers stick with one guy to close out a ballgame and prefer to keep him in this role. Hell, jokin, they're probably all wrong, and geez, who am I to question YOUR contrary opinion? That would be rather arrogant.

 

1) No nitpicking here, my observation about your strawman statement and what exactly should have happened in IMO, in the given situation, were crystal clear.

 

2) "Conventional wisdom" is often put in quotes because skepticism surrounds the conclusions reached- for good, evidence-based reasons.

 

3) I am not out by myself in the tall grass on this one. Common sense and a collection of 2 seasons worth of data strongly suggest that Perkins is clearly the best reliever on the staff and needs to pitch in a larger percentage of high leverage situations for the Twins to improve the bottom line results. The Yankees understood this with Rivera, who frequently throughout his career has come into such situations in the 8th inning and then went on to close out the game.

[notoriousgod71]

To win that game, a different tactical choice might have worked out better. In a long season, though, it's a goal to have everyone contribute. The manager has to balance these, and it's way too easy to second-guess by focusing on only one aspect.

 

It reminds me of Gardy bringing in Brian Bass in the eighth inning.

[Guest USAFChief]

Couple points: 1) In yesterday's game, Perkins could have been used in pretty much any way suggested by posters above. He could have started the 8th (probably the best option, IMO) and pitched 2 innings if necessary; or been brought in at pretty much any point after the 1st two hitters reached in the 8th. There would have been time to get him warmed up. 2) But, in general, the "use your best reliever in the highest leverage situation" meme isn't nearly as easy as many seem to think. You can't know ahead of time when such high leverage situations will arise. So unless you're prepared to have Perkins warmed and ready to enter the game in every inning after the starter leaves, in every close game, you have to find another way. Most managers have settled on some version of the current model. When you give it some critical thought, there are logical reasons for that. 3). The best answer is to have a bullpen full of good pitchers, capable of reliably coming into a game and in most cases, get outs. Most games are close, and pretty much every reliever in your pen is going to face high leverage situations throughout the season, multiple times. Many people seem to think only the two or three best relievers in a bullpen matter much. Nothing could be further from the truth. Weak links in a bullpen matter. A lot.

[drjim]

Couple points: 1) In yesterday's game, Perkins could have been used in pretty much any way suggested by posters above. He could have started the 8th (probably the best option, IMO) and pitched 2 innings if necessary; or been brought in at pretty much any point after the 1st two hitters reached in the 8th. There would have been time to get him warmed up. 2) But, in general, the "use your best reliever in the highest leverage situation" meme isn't nearly as easy as many seem to think. You can't know ahead of time when such high leverage situations will arise. So unless you're prepared to have Perkins warmed and ready to enter the game in every inning after the starter leaves, in every close game, you have to find another way. Most managers have settled on some version of the current model. When you give it some critical thought, there are logical reasons for that. 3). The best answer is to have a bullpen full of good pitchers, capable of reliably coming into a game and in most cases, get outs. Most games are close, and pretty much every reliever in your pen is going to face high leverage situations throughout the season, multiple times. Many people seem to think only the two or three best relievers in a bullpen matter much. Nothing could be further from the truth. Weak links in a bullpen matter. A lot.

 

Good thoughts. #3 is especially true and applicable.

[Scheherezade]

Davis got a grand slam off the end of the bat on a ball outside the plate. I think it's just that kind of week for him.