I've forgotten the goal for teams playing MLB games

[SwainZag]

Let's say Perk gets out of the inning, you go into the 9th tied with only Robertson and Roenicke left in the pen after already using Pressly, Duensing, Fien, Perkins and Burton being unavailable.

 

If Casilla would have homered off of Fien in the 7th with 2 on would we be talking about why he didn't bring Perkins in then too? It was one inning earlier, same score, same amount of runners in scoring position.

[Mr. Brooks]

Let's say Perk gets out of the inning, you go into the 9th tied with only Robertson and Roenicke left in the pen after already using Pressly, Duensing, Fien, Perkins and Burton being unavailable.

 

If Casilla would have homered off of Fien in the 7th with 2 on would we be talking about why he didn't bring Perkins in then too? It was one inning earlier, same score, same amount of runners in scoring position.

 

Casilla is one of the worst hitters in baseball. You shouldnt need your best BP arm to get him out.

 

Casilla has 11 career HR's. Let me repeat. He has hit just 11 HR's over his ENTIRE career.

If you can't see the massive difference between the 2 situations, I guess I don't even know where to begin.

[Brock Beauchamp]

There is a problem with assuming this is causation instead of just correlation.

Typically these guys don't get a large enough sample size to ever know if it is "pressure", or just a few bad outings making up a small sample size.

 

Is Mo Rivera the best closer of all time because he is incredibly "clutch", or is it just because he is THAT good?

I tend to lean towards the latter, in most examples.

 

In the case of closers, yes. I think SSS plays a part. When I mentioned that, I was speaking more in broad generalities of baseball itself. There are plenty of guys in history who have had the talent to play in the MLB but just can't hack it. Whether that's the stress, mental preparedness, whatever, I don't know... But some guys certainly crumble when the pressure is on.

[Mr. Brooks]

In the case of closers, yes. I think SSS plays a part. When I mentioned that, I was speaking more in broad generalities of baseball itself. There are plenty of guys in history who have had the talent to play in the MLB but just can't hack it. Whether that's the stress, mental preparedness, whatever, I don't know... But some guys certainly crumble when the pressure is on.

 

I don't dispute that.

My point is, giving Tyler Robertson a few high leverage innings in April isn't going to tell you anything conclusive.

It's far too small of a sample size.

He could be the most clutch guy in the world, but still fail over such a small sample size.

He could be the least clutch guy in the world, but still succeed over such a small sample size.

I was responding specifically to the notion that you put him in a few high leverage situations early in the year to "see how he handles it".

I couldn't disagree more with that sentiment. You are never going to see enough to make any conclusions in such a tiny sample size, so to me that is not even a logical consideration when discussing the reasons to put him/not put him in that situation.

[IdahoPilgrim]

I don't dispute that.

My point is, giving Tyler Robertson a few high leverage innings in April isn't going to tell you anything conclusive.

It's far too small of a sample size.

He could be the most clutch guy in the world, but still fail over such a small sample size.

He could be the least clutch guy in the world, but still succeed over such a small sample size.

I was responding specifically to the notion that you put him in a few high leverage situations early in the year to "see how he handles it".

I couldn't disagree more with that sentiment. You are never going to see enough to make any conclusions in such a tiny sample size, so to me that is not even a logical consideration when discussing the reasons to put him/not put him in that situation.

 

So are you saying he should be put in more high leverage situations, for a couple of months, before we can make an assessment? Or are you saying he shouldn't even be given a chance, period?

[Brock Beauchamp]

I don't dispute that.

My point is, giving Tyler Robertson a few high leverage innings in April isn't going to tell you anything conclusive.

It's far too small of a sample size.

He could be the most clutch guy in the world, but still fail over such a small sample size.

He could be the least clutch guy in the world, but still succeed over such a small sample size.

I was responding specifically to the notion that you put him in a few high leverage situations early in the year to "see how he handles it".

I couldn't disagree more with that sentiment. You are never going to see enough to make any conclusions in such a tiny sample size, so to me that is not even a logical consideration when discussing the reasons to put him/not put him in that situation.

 

Oh, I'm not arguing that he should be "tested" through his performance in clutch situations... I'm simply saying that as a situational LHP, he should be used as you would any other LOOGY. High pressure, low pressure, whatever... If you need to get a lefty out, throwing Robertson out there to see how he performs is what you do.

[Rosterman]

Well, you expected Fein to be a tad better. It was the only situation you would use Robertson in. But I agree that the closer should not ALWAYS just be an end-of-the-game let's-get-a-save type of guy. If he is your strikeout pitcher, use him in a crucial situation in a real close game. You can spread saves around a little bit.

[Mr. Brooks]

So are you saying he should be put in more high leverage situations, for a couple of months, before we can make an assessment? Or are you saying he shouldn't even be given a chance, period?

 

I'm saying you should use your best BP arms in the highest leverage situations.

Even a couple of months would still be a far too tiny sample size.

Even an entire season would be too small of a sample size.

Even a reliever who throws 80 innings a year, is only going to throw about 25-30 of them in high leverage situations.

25-30 innings is far too small of a sample size to make any conclusive statements about.

You are never going to get a large enough sample size, when it comes to relief pitchers and how they fare in specific leverage situations.

Your goal should be to put your best reliever in the highest leverage situations possible. Not try to "identify" which ones pitch best in high leverage, and which ones don't, because it's going to take you 5+ years to get a sufficient sample size to even begin to answer that question.

You should never have the attitude that, "this guy is overall not a very good relief pitcher, but in high leverage situations he's great," and vice versa. Not that it is impossible for that guy to exist, but that its nearly impossible to get a large enough sample size to identify that guy.

[Mr. Brooks]

Oh, I'm not arguing that he should be "tested" through his performance in clutch situations... I'm simply saying that as a situational LHP, he should be used as you would any other LOOGY. High pressure, low pressure, whatever... If you need to get a lefty out, throwing Robertson out there to see how he performs is what you do.

 

We'll just have to agree to disagree.

If you have a better option, you use your better option.

Your statement is a little bit like saying we should pinch hit Wilkin Ramirez for Joe Mauer if the other team brings in a lefty. Just because it's Wilkin Ramirez' job to be a RH bench bat, doesn't necessarily mean that he's always going to be the best option, and that you automatically use him if there is a lefty on the mound.

[Brock Beauchamp]

We'll just have to agree to disagree.

If you have a better option, you use your better option.

Your statement is a little bit like saying we should pinch hit Wilkin Ramirez for Joe Mauer if the other team brings in a lefty. Just because it's Wilkin Ramirez' job to be a RH bench bat, doesn't necessarily mean that he's always going to be the best option, and that you automatically use him if there is a lefty on the mound.

 

If Perkins had been sitting for three days, I'd agree. In this situation, Perkins had pitched two days before, warmed up the night before, and the Twins were going into a long series of road games with no off days for a week.

 

You can't ask Perkins to pitch every night and while I wouldn't argue with putting him into a tie game on the road in many cases, I won't argue with not doing it once early in the season, either. At some point, Gardenhire has to rely on pitchers other than Burton and Perkins to get important outs in a 162 game season.

 

As it turned out, the move was a good one. Perkins was able to come in the two following nights and shut down opposing batters to maintain a one run lead.

 

If Perkins was used in that game, there's a good chance the Twins still lose and then they have to run out a lesser pitcher in the eighth inning at least once, maybe twice, in the following nights while trying to protect a one run lead.

[cmathewson]

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?

 

Burton was unavailable. Robertson had struck out Fielder in exactly the same situation in the Tigers series. This time, it didn't work out. Now he's in Rochester.

[jay]

If Perkins had been sitting for three days, I'd agree. In this situation, Perkins had pitched two days before, warmed up the night before, and the Twins were going into a long series of road games with no off days for a week.

 

No one is saying use your best BP pitcher every game of the week and this one particular situation isn't even the point to take away. The real point here is that the best bullpen pitcher(s) should be used in the highest leverage situations, with consideration also given to L/R splits.

 

Fangraphs has a neat little leverage index for every game, btw - Orioles » Box Score » Friday, April 05, 2013 | FanGraphs Baseball

[Ultima Ratio]

He can't go two days in a row?

Had Gardy done that, this would be Perkins season thus far:

 

Day Off

Pitched

Warmed Up

Pitched

Pitched

 

Is that how you want to start the season in cold weather for your best reliever?

 

Perk did go two days in a row, I am vindicated. I'll even wager that he will be available today, three days in a row, if the "situation" manifests.

[Brock Beauchamp]

No one is saying use your best BP pitcher every game of the week and this one particular situation isn't even the point to take away. The real point here is that the best bullpen pitcher(s) should be used in the highest leverage situations, with consideration also given to L/R splits.

 

But that's exactly what people are saying. They'll deny it but that's the point they're arguing (intentionally or not) by complaining about the management of one game in early April.

 

Few people have been more critical of Gardy's bullpen management over the years than myself. His dogmatic adherence to the save stat (one of the most useless in all of baseball) is infuriating.

 

But every time there's a "critical situation", you can't demand that he call on Perkins or Burton. Those two would pitch 140 games if that was the case. Every time a pitcher is called to the mound, Gardenhire has to weigh the situation, the batter, and his bullpen's current state. Best case scenario in this game was a strikeout and somebody was going to have to get three more Orioles out the next inning. Robertson (or fill in the blank mediocre/bad reliever here) is going to have to get some of those guys out over the course of a season.

 

As it turned out, Gardenhire's position was entirely defensible (which I said it was at the time). By letting Perkins sit a game, he was able to call on him in the following two games and help notch two one-run road wins for the Twins. Overall, I'll take it.

 

And, again, if Perkins had been sitting for three days and Gardy didn't use him because it wasn't a save situation, he'd be wrong. And I've been the first in line over the years to scream bloody murder when he does it. But that wasn't the case here and saving Perkins worked out pretty well for the team as a whole.

[jay]

The real point here is that the best bullpen pitcher(s) should be used in the highest leverage situations, with consideration also given to L/R splits.

 

I should have mentioned batting order considerations as well.

 

If we want to use that game situation from Friday, assuming Perkins was capable of pitching, I'd much rather see him face their best hitters with guys already on base and a 1-run lead than pitch the 9th against the bottom half of their lineup with no one on base.

 

And let's be honest here, if Fien/Robertson had gotten out of that jam in 8th, Perk would have been out there in the 9th.

[Mr. Brooks]

If Perkins had been sitting for three days, I'd agree. In this situation, Perkins had pitched two days before, warmed up the night before, and the Twins were going into a long series of road games with no off days for a week.

 

You can't ask Perkins to pitch every night and while I wouldn't argue with putting him into a tie game on the road in many cases, I won't argue with not doing it once early in the season, either. At some point, Gardenhire has to rely on pitchers other than Burton and Perkins to get important outs in a 162 game season.

 

As it turned out, the move was a good one. Perkins was able to come in the two following nights and shut down opposing batters to maintain a one run lead.

 

If Perkins was used in that game, there's a good chance the Twins still lose and then they have to run out a lesser pitcher in the eighth inning at least once, maybe twice, in the following nights while trying to protect a one run lead.

 

Question: Who do you think Gardy would have used to pitch the 9th inning with a 3 run lead?

[Mr. Brooks]

But that's exactly what people are saying. They'll deny it but that's the point they're arguing (intentionally or not) by complaining about the management of one game in early April.

 

Few people have been more critical of Gardy's bullpen management over the years than myself. His dogmatic adherence to the save stat (one of the most useless in all of baseball) is infuriating.

 

But every time there's a "critical situation", you can't demand that he call on Perkins or Burton. Those two would pitch 140 games if that was the case. Every time a pitcher is called to the mound, Gardenhire has to weigh the situation, the batter, and his bullpen's current state. Best case scenario in this game was a strikeout and somebody was going to have to get three more Orioles out the next inning. Robertson (or fill in the blank mediocre/bad reliever here) is going to have to get some of those guys out over the course of a season.

 

As it turned out, Gardenhire's position was entirely defensible (which I said it was at the time). By letting Perkins sit a game, he was able to call on him in the following two games and help notch two one-run road wins for the Twins. Overall, I'll take it.

 

And, again, if Perkins had been sitting for three days and Gardy didn't use him because it wasn't a save situation, he'd be wrong. And I've been the first in line over the years to scream bloody murder when he does it. But that wasn't the case here and saving Perkins worked out pretty well for the team as a whole.

 

No, thats not true at all.

You think you are going to get bases loaded in the 8th, tie game, and a LH hitting HR threat at the plate 140 games?

I'm strictly referring to high leverage situations, not medium leverage situations.

I think perhaps you are overestimating how often high leverage situations occur?

[Brock Beauchamp]

No, thats not true at all.

You think you are going to get bases loaded in the 8th, tie game, and a LH hitting HR threat at the plate 140 games?

I'm strictly referring to high leverage situations, not medium leverage situations.

I think perhaps you are overestimating how often high leverage situations occur?

 

140 games, 120 games, 100 games. It doesn't matter. The point is that no relief pitcher can be asked to pitch in every high leverage situation through the course of the season.

[Brock Beauchamp]

Question: Who do you think Gardy would have used to pitch the 9th inning with a 3 run lead?

 

Probably Perkins. And he'd be wrong for doing it.

 

But that's not what I'm arguing.

[jay]

By letting Perkins sit a game, he was able to call on him in the following two games and help notch two one-run road wins for the Twins. Overall, I'll take it.

 

If we want to focus so specifically on usage... Perkins had Monday off, Tuesday no game, Wednesday pitched, Thursday warmed up. If we're talking about using pitchers in high-leverage situations, one could very well argue he shouldn't have pitched on Wednesday anyway (ending up winning the game makes it look more important, but it wasn't at the time).

 

Those key at bats in the 8th on Friday were higher leverage than all of his other appearances, including Saturday and Sunday. Bottom line, he should have been pitching there. Using the completely unknown future that happened to turn out to bolster your point in hindsight is exceptionally subjective. We certainly wouldn't want Gardy to manage based on possibilities in the future.

[jay]

To illustrate the point:

Leverage from Perk's appearance on Wed -- 0.71, 0.55, 0.39

Leverage on Friday, 8th inning -- McLouth AB 3.90, Machado AB 4.51, Markakis AB 4.11, Jones AB 6.39, Davis AB 4.52.

Saturday appearance -- 3.53, 2.70, 1.87

Sunday appearance -- 3.53, 2.70, 1.87

 

Even cherry picking the future shows us that the at-bats on Friday were higher leverage.

[Brock Beauchamp]

Those key at bats in the 8th on Friday were higher leverage than all of his other appearances, including Saturday and Sunday. Bottom line, he should have been pitching there. Using the completely unknown future that happened to turn out to bolster your point in hindsight is exceptionally subjective. We certainly wouldn't want Gardy to manage based on possibilities in the future.

 

Except that I said it at the time, too. The Twins were going into a long run of consecutive road games; it didn't take much in the way of foresight to realize that Perkins was going to be needed in following games.

 

Even if you can't see the future, you need to manage for it the best you can. The Twins can't burn through their best bullpen arms in the first game of a road series in which five consecutive games are to follow before the next day off.

 

And I disagree that Friday was more high leverage than Saturday and Sunday. While a tie game is a toss-up, a win is a win is a win. And a one-run lead in the ninth on the road gets you that win. Sabremetrics are great and all but the playoffs aren't decided by the team that looks best on a spreadsheet. At some point, you need to stop and realize that wins are what counts and one-run wins on the road are nothing to scoff at (not to mention the crushing defeat that can affect players after blowing a late lead on the road).

 

Again, best case scenario for Friday was that the Twins still have to figure out how to get three more Orioles (probably more) out in the ninth (and beyond).

[Mr. Brooks]

140 games, 120 games, 100 games. It doesn't matter. The point is that no relief pitcher can be asked to pitch in every high leverage situation through the course of the season.

 

Of course he can't. But he should have in this one. Most of the time your 2nd best option (Burton) would be available, and your 3rd best option (Duensing) won't always have been used already.

The times that the choice will have to be between your best option and your 4th or worse option is going to be pretty rare.

 

And you are still overestimating how many high leverage innings occur over a season. It's probably closer to 65 or 70.

[jay]

And I disagree that Friday was more high leverage than Saturday and Sunday. While a tie game is a toss-up, a win is a win is a win.

 

Brock, the mistake you're making here is assuming that Perkins should have been brought in to face Davis. Based off the leverage figures, he should have been brought in sooner... before it was a tie game.

 

We can argue this to death, but I'd rather have seen Perkins come in earlier in the 8th to preserve that lead... even if it meant that someone else had to pitch the 9th on either Saturday or Sunday. He ended up pitching Saturday and Sunday, but in reality, it was far more likely he wouldn't have been needed both days.

[Brock Beauchamp]

Of course he can't. But he should have in this one.

 

And what happens if Duensing blows a one run lead on Friday or Saturday because Perkins is unavailable (not to mention that the Twins easily could have lost on Friday even if Perkins pitched)?

 

Then should Perkins really have been used? It's not hard to imagine a situation where the Twins leave Baltimore with a 3-3 record if Perkins pitched the eighth inning (and I'd argue that it's just as likely as them leaving with a 5-1 record had the Twins won Friday).

 

Again, not every game can be managed like it's the World Series. Rest, future schedule, bullpen strength, these are all things that need to be considered in a 162 game season.

[Brock Beauchamp]

Brock, the mistake you're making here is assuming that Perkins should have been brought in to face Davis. Based off the leverage figures, he should have been brought in sooner... before it was a tie game.

 

Now you're getting to a point I can agree with... Should Perkins have been brought out before the bases became loaded? That's a more salient question, IMO.

 

On the other hand, you're dealing with so many hypotheticals at that point, it's hard to keep it all straight. After all, three of the first four Orioles due up that inning were righties.

[jay]

I agree with you in full that using him vs Davis would be a bad idea. The tie-game toss up argument holds true.

 

Regardless of the hypotheticals, the leverage numbers and even the matchups say Perk probably should have come in as soon as he could warm up once a runner got on base.

[jay]

I agree with you in full that using him vs Davis would be a bad idea. The tie-game toss up argument holds true.

 

Regardless of the hypotheticals, the leverage numbers and even the matchups say Perk probably should have come in as soon as he could warm up once a runner got on base.

 

Assuming he starts warming up as soon as someone gets on...

If the current pitcher gets outs (and hence decreases the leverage), he just has to stay warm a bit longer to pitch the 9th.

If anything else goes wrong, he's hopefully warm by then and ready to pitch.

 

Fact is, you have to make through the high leverage situation in the 8th to still have a lead in the 9th.

[Brock Beauchamp]

I agree with you in full that using him vs Davis would be a bad idea. The tie-game toss up argument holds true.

 

Regardless of the hypotheticals, the leverage numbers and even the matchups say Perk probably should have come in as soon as he could warm up once a runner got on base.

 

I won't argue that the team would be better off if Gardy reserved Perkins for more runner on base situations in the eighth inning.

 

My only real point is that I won't chastise him much for not doing it once in early April. I'm sure there will be truly awe-inspiring facepalm moments that better deserve my wrath in the months to come.

[Guest USAFChief]

Couple points: 1) Because Fangraphs has a formula that they believe can accurately determine "leverage", and publish it as an index, does not mean they have cracked the code on ANYthing. It's one person's opinion, and an opinion based on...what? Personally, I'd rather use my best reliever to pitch the bottom of the 9th in a game where I have a one run lead, and a scoreless inning guarantees a win, than use him in a supposedly "higher leverage" situation that may or may not result in a win. 2) Even supposing the "leverage index" is somehow useful, I go back to my earlier point...it's pretty much impossible to predict when these situations will occur. People tend to think relievers can just be summoned from the bullpen when needed. They can't. They need to warm up first, which means you have to decide to warm them up some time in advance of when a hypothetical situation might occur. Warming them up, and then not using them, has it's own set of problems. 3) This all comes back to this (yet again): every reliever on your staff is going to face situations where he needs to get hitters out in a close game. The answer isn't using Perkins or Burton every time the game is close after the 6th inning. The answer is to have a deeper bullpen. If Fien doesn't give up an 0-2 single to start the 8th, or then allow the following hitter to reach base, we're not having this conversation. 4) Which leads to this: Why do people assume that when the Twins bullpen can't protect a lead in the 8th, they'll somehow magically perform better in the 9th, when Perkins is no longer available because you've used him somewhere else already? Why do people assume that if Perkins had gone 2 innings on Friday, these same relievers that failed in the 8th Friday would succeed in the 9th Saturday, when Perkins wouldn't have been available at all?