Baseball criticism from beyond the grave...
June 27, 2017 7:45 PM   Subscribe

 
I was just at the Nationals game tonight and my friend and I were talking about this very thing. I think it's hilarious that the family did it and, among the faithful fans, this is the burr in the saddle.

To fair, the bullpen isn't THAT bad - the Nats will be fine, but they're going to need a veteran closer when the playoffs come around, everyone knows it, and that means lots of money that the Lerners may not want to shell out.

And while the bullpen actually performed tonight, I can think of at least 10 games this season so far where the bullpen didn't just blow a game, but blew a multi-run lead and then the game. It's been brutal for the fanbase because other than the bullpen, the Nats have a terrific offense and really, really good starting pitching. This is the best lineup they've had in years.

Of course, they're also in a pretty weak division, but they did beat the Cubs tonight.

And the bullpen did not suck.

So there's hope.
posted by Thistledown at 8:01 PM on June 27, 2017 [5 favorites]


This reminds me of the joke about the football fan who wanted his favorite team to be his pall bearers so they could “let him down one more time.”
posted by 4ster at 8:09 PM on June 27, 2017 [6 favorites]


The obituary was great, but you Nationals fans get no sympathy from this Braves fan.
posted by TedW at 8:23 PM on June 27, 2017 [2 favorites]


The Braves have two perfectly capable closers, thanks very much. Heck, it's a luxury compared to what some teams are dealing with right now.

2017 has already been an interesting year in the brief history of specialist pitching, which it's easy to forget wasn't always a thing. A half-dozen teams (including LAD, BOS, CLE and CIN) have been deliberately experimenting with non-traditional closer use, and the results have been pretty good so far. Of course, it helps when you have an overall good bullpen to experiment with. The Nationals relievers have been kind of awful, to a man.
posted by rokusan at 1:14 AM on June 28, 2017


The Nationals have the 3rd best record in the NL, 4th best overall. They're leading their division by 8.5 games, and Fangraphs pegs them as the third most likeliest team to reach the playoffs, with an 98.5% chance. And fans are griping?

Fans of the Mets, Cards, Giants, and Jays can complain - those teams were all expected to compete and are all performing well below expectations. Blown leads? The Jays were up 4-1 with TWO outs in the bottom of the ninth against KC, a team that was 0 for 29 in comebacks after the 8th, and found a way to lose. They've had nine chances so far to reach .500 on the season, and have lost every time. They made terrible deals in the offseason, had injuries to just about every player, DFA'd practically an entire team's worth of players, and the ones still around are almost uniformly playing terrible. Their one likely AllStar is Justin Smoak, whose 8 year career high batting average was .238.

Blown saves? Hell, my team's already blown the season.
posted by GhostintheMachine at 3:11 AM on June 28, 2017 [4 favorites]


My favorite team sucks.
posted by ericost at 5:56 AM on June 28, 2017 [2 favorites]


My favorite team sucks.

At least your favorite team wasn't stolen and spirited away to a foreign capital.
posted by srboisvert at 5:58 AM on June 28, 2017 [4 favorites]


.

I love a good obituary. Such a great way of getting a picture of who someone really was, not just a rote list of their careers and relatives.

A half-dozen teams (including LAD, BOS, CLE and CIN) have been deliberately experimenting with non-traditional closer use, and the results have been pretty good so far.

The Sox have been trying closer-by-committee since the early 2000s. The players hate it (unpredictable, no more cushy 9th inning saves), their agents hate it (save stats and reliever dollars get spread around more), the managers hate it (requires careful analysis of game state, opens them up to second-guessing), the fans hate it (unless it works immediately and consistently because they are animals that fear change), but it is clearly a more optimal strategy for winning games and building a team.
posted by Rock Steady at 7:31 AM on June 28, 2017 [2 favorites]


> The obituary was great, but you Nationals fans get no sympathy from this Braves Mets fan.

Also, what GhostintheMachine said. And what ericost said.
posted by languagehat at 7:32 AM on June 28, 2017


> The Nationals have the 3rd best record in the NL, 4th best overall. They're leading their division by 8.5 games, and Fangraphs pegs them as the third most likeliest team to reach the playoffs, with an 98.5% chance. And fans are griping?

I'd be griping too if my $22 million ace had to stay in for almost 120 pitches in a 1-0 game because there's nobody in the bullpen that can be trusted to pitch a clean inning. There are plenty of relievers out there that would be improvements over anyone in the Nats pen and could basically be had for a song. If all the sellers are holding out because they know the Nats are desperate, well, just pay the ransom. They don't even need a proven closer, just a guy or three who can pitch.
posted by tonycpsu at 7:33 AM on June 28, 2017 [1 favorite]


Hey my Braves comment was favorited by Andruw Jones! How cool is that?
posted by TedW at 7:59 AM on June 28, 2017 [3 favorites]


I don't mean closer-by-committee, Rock Steady. That's just playing 9th inning matchups, and it's often just code for "we don't have any relievers we trust."

The biggest two changes teams are experimenting with more boldly are (1) use your best pitchers in the highest leverage situation, no matter what inning it is, and (2) use effective pitchers for more innings. The result will be a couple of 120-inning relievers doing 2-3 innings at a stint, rather than five guys pitching 50 innings each, a few batters at a time.

The first is the thing sabermetricians have been arguing for for a decade now, and the second is a bit of a throwback to pre-1970's baseball, an anti-specialization movement.

If it spreads, it will absolutely destroy saves and holds as stats, which will annoy a lot of agents, but in the long run it's a good thing, since those are pretty dumb stats, anyway.

Now if we could only get rid of the "win".
posted by rokusan at 9:28 AM on June 28, 2017 [2 favorites]


Blown saves? Hell, my team's already blown the season.

Oh yeah? Well, my team's probably blown the decade! My one joy in the playoffs since the Phils dropped out of competitive baseball is watching the other NL East teams lose, so I celebrate the Nats inability to win a playoff series! Perhaps Papelbon has kept in shape and is just waiting for their call?
posted by gladly at 10:18 AM on June 28, 2017 [1 favorite]


Oh, the whole NL East is a mess, Gladly, which is an opportunity as the Nationals age.

I kind of like the young Phillies core right now. Depending on the next draft or two (more pitching, please, and then more pitching) and how they manage to keep it together, that could be a real powerhouse in the making. It feels a little like Houston three years ago.

Of course, so does Atlanta.
posted by rokusan at 10:21 AM on June 28, 2017


Followup article.
“He had a great life and I think he knew it,” said [his son]. “He used to tell me, ‘You know, I’ve got absolutely nothing to complain about.’ And then he’d always stop and say, ‘Except maybe for the Nationals’ bullpen.’ ”
posted by Shmuel510 at 10:40 AM on June 28, 2017 [1 favorite]


We are off on a tangent here, but since I suspect it is one Mr Killebrew (not a bad name for a baseball fan) would approve of, I’ll keep it going.

The biggest two changes teams are experimenting with more boldly are (1) use your best pitchers in the highest leverage situation, no matter what inningit is, and (2) use effective pitchers for more innings. The result will be a couple of 120-inning relievers doing 2-3 innings at a stint, rather than five guys pitching 50 innings each, a few batters at a time.

That was the original intent of closer-by-committee, as envisioned by Dan Duquette. Surprise, surprise, the Boston sports media did not fully understand it and made it into the kind of mockery you suggest. The Sox front office really have been trying to push for this for 15 years now, it is just that hard of a sell to just about everyone in the game you does not have a fairly advanced statistical perspective.
posted by Rock Steady at 11:27 AM on June 28, 2017


I kind of like the young Phillies core right now.

I liked them more before this season got underway. I am trying to follow Phillies twitter advice to "trust the prospects."
posted by gladly at 1:23 PM on June 28, 2017


use your best pitchers in the highest leverage situation, no matter what inning it is

Funny how long it took for some teams to realize it's a good thing to bring your closer in for the 9th in a tie at home, because there's never going to be a lead you need to hold.
posted by GhostintheMachine at 7:58 PM on June 28, 2017


oh, lead

I misread the post for a sec there
posted by clockzero at 9:55 PM on June 28, 2017


If we're only supposed to say nice things about the dead, perhaps there should be mutual limits.
posted by Ogre Lawless at 6:50 AM on June 29, 2017


That was the original intent of closer-by-committee, as envisioned by Dan Duquette.

Bill James (who was there) says that the closer-by-committee isn't at all what they were trying to do in Boston. Rather, they were just trying to save money that offseason by spending less on the bullpen and more on offense, and would figure out the closer thing later. The "closer by committee" label was just something the press kept pressing about all spring until someone in the organization said some version of "Okay, fine, yes, call it that if you have to."

(In that post, James also explains that a C-by-C is can lead to the opposite of using the best reliever in the highest-leverage situation, which is what he advocated/advocates. Sadly, it's all become entangled with the more general rethink of bullpens, and so use of the term by advocates has always been about the mix-and-match mockery. There was never a pure, wise or good use of the term in the first place.)
posted by rokusan at 1:34 AM on June 30, 2017 [1 favorite]


Yeah, it's clear that there is a problem with terminology, because when I say "closer-by-committee" I mean, basically, "spending less on the bullpen and more on offense, and [...] figure out the closer thing [i.e. who pitches when] later". It's a way of reallocating a team's resources away from things the rest of the league values incorrectly (e.g. having one stellar reliever whose job is pitching the 9th and only the 9th) to things that are undervalued yet have a greater effect on wins and losses (e.g. having several decent relievers who pitch in whatever circumstance they will be most effective in). I'm not sure what you and/or Bill James would call that. In my mind the term came to be (willfully?) misunderstood by the media (and thereby the fans) to mean something like "everybody takes turns as closer" which I don't think anyone has ever advocated.

That's an interesting post by James, especially in that it reveals that he seemed to be moving towards supporting the "traditional" use of the bullpen (by that I mean having one stellar reliever whose job is pitching the 9th and only the 9th). I wonder how much of that was influenced by being closer to front office orthodoxy over the intervening 10 years or so. I'm not 100% sure I buy what he is selling about not being involved in the Sox's 2003 bullpen strategy - he has some professional incentive to distance himself from it, after all. I do agree that, however it happened, the Sox did not execute anything like the type of bullpen strategies he advocated at the time, I'm just not sure I believe he was uninvolved with the decision-making (his passive voice is pretty strong in that section of the post, I'm just saying..).
posted by Rock Steady at 7:32 AM on June 30, 2017


Yes, Rock Steady.

There's an intersecting belief (with at least some data behind it) that says that pretty much any good pitcher can close, and pretty much any good pitcher can crash and burn spectacularly when closing, too, and there's now way to know which will happen from day to day. So when we anoint a guy and he has a little success for a few months or years, we pat ourselves on the back for... well, for the very random good luck.

If that belief is even remotely true, it means that yes, it's pretty foolish to spend $9M/a on a "proven closer" when you might just as well try some of these $300K guys until one of them works. And when he breaks down, as almost all of them do ("proven" or not), well, there are a dozen more waiting.

It's not very romantic, but most of moneyball-style management is about ditching the romance for cold, cruel dollars and cents, so it fits.
posted by rokusan at 8:32 AM on June 30, 2017 [1 favorite]


« Older Swapping digits of pi and e   |   Where do the stairs at the bottom of the pool go?... Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments