Running 2011 Baseball Thread, Vol. I: Dedicated to spnited

Actually, in the dawn of the bullpen era (1950-1980 or so), that's how most relievers were used. There was an ace out there, who was expected to come in whenever things got real dicey, but was also expected to pitch more than one inning. The person who got the "closer" assignment was often based on matchups, that is, a lefty would work the ninth if lefty batters were due up and vice versa.
Statistical case in point: 1961 Cincinnati Reds. They had two main relievers, Jim Brosnan and Bill Henry, Brosnan a righty, Henry the lefty. Both had 16 saves. But Brosnan's W-L record was 10-4 and Henry's was 2-1.
It is the trend to have no relievers except long men go more than an inning that limits closers to the ninth more than a general belief it's the most important inning. If every pitcher goes just one inning, then the ninth is automatically going to be saved for the top reliever. Fear of the future over fear of the present.

 

That's the problem with relievers -- so few are reliable. The Red Sox had what they and many others thought was one of the best set-up men in baseball in Daniel Bard. Then he fell apart late in the season.

 

Rany Jazayerli has been saying this about Soria for a few years. Save him for any and all high-leverage situations, and forget pigeonholing five or six ineffective relievers.

 

No, risk aversion is the reason why no MLB club uses its bullpen that way. Same reason why NFL coaches don't go for it on 4th and 3 from the 38.

 

Agreed. They don't want to be second-guessed.

 

I suspect there's a tremendous amoung of risk/loss aversion going on in how the "closer" is used. If your best guy gets the big bats out in the 7th (or gets you through a tough spot) and your weaker guys cough up the lead in the 8th or 9th, you'd probably experience some serious regret even though, in the long run, you're better off with that approach. The economists would call that "insurance" ... you get less, in expected value, out of your staff in exchange for more psychological security.

 

No. It's because there is nobody currently in position to make such decisions who believes relief pitchers used in that manner would perform optimally.

 

Then why did "closer" Papelbon make 14 appearances this year in games where his team was tied or losing by 1?

 

How many times did he come in before the ninth inning?

 

Bases loaded in the seventh, your team is leading by 1 with Pujols coming to the plate. How does it make sense to not use your best reliever? Who cares that it's not the 9th, you may never get to the 9th with the lead if you let an inferior reliever pitch in this situation.

 

Starters also went further in those days, and relievers weren't used as often. Hence, relievers could go more than one inning.

Today, it's almost as if it's by rote. Take starter out after 6. Put in 7th inning guy. Then eighth inning guy. Then the closer.

 

So you're saying ... he's been misused.

Well, I'll be dipped in shit and rolled in bread crumbs.