A Modest Proposal

by SQUAD on May 6, 2008 11:58 PM EDT

(I've posted this elsewhere, so if you've seen it, I am not stealing it... just thought you guys would appreciate the idea.)

Does anyone think MLB teams need to seriously re-think how they stock their bullpens? Instead of having a bunch of specialists, why not fill it with guys like Figgy. Pitchers who can't start because they get exploited after 2 turns through the order.

Assuming you carry 7 bullpen guys like the Mets, here is how I would construct a bullpen if I were a GM:

You would have 3 late inning, "shut down" pitchers. For us, this would be Wagner, Sanchez, and Feliciano.

Then you would have 3 "second starters" (or "failed starters" if you must). These slots would be filled by pitchers who are effective for about 3-4 innings at a time, but once a lineup sees them for the 3rd time, they get hit hard. It is due to a lack of a 3rd pitch or just stamina/focus issues. Heilman would be perfect for this role. Figueroa would probably work. Heck, even Lima would be fine (he really was ok for 2-3 innings before imploding).

The last slot you could play with. Maybe you would have a LH specialist, especially if you're the Mets b/c you have the Phils and Braves in division. Otherwise, you could add another 2nd starter or shut down guy, depending on your needs.

My thoughts with splitting the bullpen are like so: with starters lasting roughly 6 innings, this gives you 4 innings per night the pen needs to pitch. If you had 3-4 guys capable of giving you 2-4 innings per appearance, you wouldn't need to throw guys every freaking day.

So, for example: Johan – 6; Heilman – 2; Wagner – 1. Ollie – 5; Heilman – 3; Wagner – 1.

A few more notes on the execution: You wouldn't want to bring your second starters into the middle of an inning if you didn't have to. This is why you have 3 shut down pitchers. Say Ollie is cruising along through 5 when things start to unravel in the 6th. Now he's gone 5.1 innings, and there are men on 1 & 2. You wouldn't want to bring a "second starter" into this situation. This would call for a shutdown pitcher (or what they used to call a fireman). So you would bring in Sanchez.

The problem is, this would require a whole new way of thinking for managers. Imagine Willie bringing Duaner into the game in the 6th inning? I'm not sure he could even make the phone call. This would require a whole lot of "thinking outside the box." (And this would apply to most managers, not just Willie, so I don't mean to pick on him.)

This FanPost was contributed by a member of the community and was not subject to any vetting or approval process. It does not necessarily reflect the opinions, reasoning skills, or attention to grammar and usage rules held by the editors of this site.

Tweet Comment 18 comments | 1 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

pigs may fly

I think there’s a lot of room for trying different things, but Randolph certainly will not be the first to do so.

As long as the “save” is a stat, you will have the same old thinking dictating most bullpen decisions for managers.

Look instead to Girardi, Ned Yost, or even LaRussa to really start breaking the “rules.” And then see which of those guys has success with their moves.

We've got ourselves a ball club, the Mets of New York town!

by kingcritical on May 7, 2008 12:35 AM EDT reply actions

Willie

Just want to say, I hate the way he’s used Feliciano. I understand that he’s been getting into trouble a lot, but on three different occasions he allowed a base runner and didn’t record an out, and on four different occasions he came in and recorded only one out and allowed no base runners.
18 APP: 10.2 IP

Talkin' Sports

by BlackOps on May 7, 2008 11:48 AM EDT reply actions

small steps

I would settle for managers knowing it’s okay to use your closer in non-save situations.

8th inning, up by 1, three All Stars coming up, but you’re “not allowed” to bring in your best pitcher. He’s got to wait and face the 6-7-8 slots in the 9th, if your lead survives that long.

What sense does that make?

by mmxii on May 7, 2008 12:06 PM EDT reply actions

but I totally agree

Many pundits wonder why starters don’t go as long into the games. Maybe because with video review and tunable pitching machines, hitters can practice against a starter’s pitches pre-game and get “locked in” that much faster.

by mmxii on May 7, 2008 12:11 PM EDT up reply actions

It has to do with our stupid need to "label" things...

I was really young at the time, but I don’t remember Orosco or McDowell being called a “close.” From what I’ve read and my dad told me, they called them firemen. The problem is, there is no way to quantify a fireman’s value, thus they don’t get paid. So they come up with a ridiculous label – closer, and a ridiculous stat – save, just so they can go into negotiations and say: “Hey look at how many saves this guys has!!! He’s a premier closer!!!”

by SQUAD on May 7, 2008 12:36 PM EDT up reply actions

I guess while I am at it...

Here is how I would construct the Mets pen:

3 “Shutdown” Pitchers: Wagner, Sanchez, Feliciano. These are the guys I want coming into the game, whether it be a tight jam in a key spot or starting the 8th/9th inning.

3 “Second Starters”: Figueroa, Heilman, and Wise. These are the guys I would like to see stretched out a bit. They don’t have drastic RH/LH splits and could go 2-3 innings out of the pen. Using these guys in this manner does two things: 1 – it helps save the bullpen from getting overworked (i.e., you don’t need to use 5 guys a night). 2 – Since you’re going with 7 BP spots, the bench is short as it is. With these guys working multiple innings you wouldn’t need to constantly PH, although it would probably be advised to double switch one of these guys into the game. These spots could also go to a young pitcher who they wanted to break into the bigs (aka – the Earl Weaver method.)

Last Spot: Schoenweiss. It could have gone to Smith as well, but in this division we could probably use the extra LH. However, in a perfect world, I would have this spot alternately filled by Smith and a LH counterpart who also had options (I guess for argument’s sake, someone like Steve Schmoll). This way, you could check out the upcoming schedule and call up the extra LH/RH as needed.

Then I would call up Vargas and slot him into the 5th spot in the rotation. (Either that or we could keep Figga What in the rotation and put Vargas into the pen as a second starter… either way, it really doesn’t matter.)

Last night was actually a perfect example of how I would like to see this system work (although Figgy giving up 5 in 5 wasn’t ideal). You had Figueroa give you 5, Heilman gave you 2, and then Feliciano/Smith finished it up (although it still boggles the mind why Feliciano isn’t allowed to pitch a full inning.) To be honest, I would have liked to have seen Heilman go 3 last night. It’s stuff like that (Heilman going 3) that saves a bullpen over the long season.

Yes, I understand what would REALLY save the bullpen would be the starters lasting more than 5/6 innings, but all of MLB is trending downward in terms of ip/start for SP, and SP in the NL actually only averaged 5.75 IP/start. With pitch counts and huge contracts for starters, this is the direction baseball is headed/already is going in. Thus, managers and GMs better start thinking of new ways to deploy/construct the pen to account for this shift. It was different when LaRussa started this nonsense with the A’s in the 80s, because a pitcher would go 6+ more consistently, so he would slow the game down in the last 2-3 innings playing matchups. Well, you can’t do that for 3+ innings unless you have a small army coming out of the pen.

by SQUAD on May 7, 2008 12:52 PM EDT reply actions

The point is

the Mets, and really every team in the majors, are carrying wayyyy too many relievers. I mean, there was a Brewers/Cardinals series where the teams had 27 pitchers between them. The Mets specifically have set up the pen where we have like Wags at the top and then 4 different lefty right up combos, each decreasing in skill. 7 relievers may provide more flexibility for those matchups, but it gets rid of most flexibility on the offensive side of the ball as well. You’re losing pinch hitters by having Pedro F throw to 2 hitters a game or keeping a long reliever in there for those once a week or less breakdowns.

I’d like to see the long reliever tossed away, in favor of using the starter on his throw day instead, and then getting rid of another reliever maybe. 10 or 11 pitchers is plenty. There’s really no way to get 7 relievers regular work, especially with a manger like Willie who will just ride the 1 hot hand he has for weeks until his arm falls off.

With 12 pitchers, you have 5 bench guys, 1 is the back up catcher and you don’t want to use him in case of injury. So you have just 4 pinch hitters/runners/defensive replacements, and one usually gets used in the 6th inning or so, so that if a game goes into extras, you often have to double switch or just let pitchers hit because you run out of bench guys that quickly. god forbid we lose a player to an injury that has him stay on hte roster, because then you have even fewer options.

Bit of a rant here, but I don’t get why people go for pitching matchups over hitting ones.

When asked why I was a Mets fan, I responded, "pain is my lifeblood."

by wrightHOF on May 7, 2008 9:59 PM EDT reply actions

i'm sure a lot of managers want to do it

but with the amount of money these guys make, their egos, etc. it’s too bad, because it makes perfect sense. amazing that if a-rod, miguel cabrera and derrek lee were up in the 8th, the manager would use an inferior pitcher and save the closer to pitch to tony womack, pokey reese, and luis castillo in the 9th. inefficient and counterproductive.

by gogomets on May 7, 2008 10:29 PM EDT reply actions

here's what I don't get about bullpen usage

You would have 3 late inning, “shut down” pitchers.

No! This isn’t how to do it! The most important innings are not always the late innings. You want your best relievers to be pitching in the highest-leverage situations, the ones where they make the biggest contribution to the team’s chances to win games.

The thing that confuses me is that people treat this as though it would be complicated, or confusing, or mess up the existing hierarchy of the bullpen (which runs roughly closer-setup-short relief-long relief). In fact, it’s blindingly simple and can easily be made into a hierarchy of its own. Just set it up by run differential instead of inning pitched, with the best relief pitcher used when the game is closest. Instead of closers and setup guys, you have your 0-1 run difference relief ace(s), with the real ace/closer maybe reserved for innings where you’re tied or up by one. Then you have your 2-3 run difference guys, and your long reliever, and you only slot these guys into games with a tighter score after using the better relievers. Is this complicated? Is it a “committee” approach that leaves relievers confused about their roles or when they’ll be used? No—it’s dead simple and easily conducive to a nice, neat pecking order. It also has the advantage of making the team more likely to win games.

by anonymous on May 8, 2008 5:30 PM EDT reply actions

Anonymous, did you just stop reading after that?

Say Ollie is cruising along through 5 when things start to unravel in the 6th. Now he’s gone 5.1 innings, and there are men on 1 & 2. You wouldn’t want to bring a “second starter” into this situation. This would call for a shutdown pitcher (or what they used to call a fireman). So you would bring in Sanchez.

by SQUAD on May 9, 2008 10:52 AM EDT reply actions

yeah, I read that

I can’t figure out what you’re saying, honestly. A few paragraphs earlier you describe the ace relievers as “late-inning” pitchers, then here you’re saying it makes sense to use them in the sixth inning. I’m all for re-allocating innings a little more broadly away from the sole “long man” and toward more relievers pitching 1-2 innings rather than facing single batters, so if that’s the point of this screed I agree completely. But it’s hard to figure out what consistent pattern of bullpen use you’re advocating, and the conflation of late innings with important innings is a serious problem.

If we’re cooking up a scheme to replace the current default bullpen hierarchy, it has to be easily explainable in a single sentence, and conducive to a hierarchy of set roles for the pitchers—that was what killed the last few attempts to do “closer by committee,” the perception of arbitrary complication among the players as much as the sportswriters. My proposal is to base the new roles and use pattern on the run differential.

by anonymous on May 9, 2008 11:17 AM EDT up reply actions

Why?

If we’re cooking up a scheme to replace the current default bullpen hierarchy, it has to be easily explainable in a single sentence, and conducive to a hierarchy of set roles for the pitchers

Why does it have to be easily explainable? And I don’t see how this isn’t that easy to explain.

But before I get into that, I would like to address something you’ve mentioned. First, I do believe there is a correlation between high leverage innings and late innings because, if you’re going by WP, the later in the game, the more crucial the outs. Plus, you would need someone to read tea leaves to figure out if the situation in the middle of the sixth inning will be the highest leverage situation. You just don’t know for sure. This is why it would be a waste of use Billy Wagner in the 6th, imo.

Therefore, allow me to show you how I would address my bullpen since these guys need “defined roles” so badly.

To Feliciano, Duaner, and Wagner: You three are going to come in when shit gets dicey/later in the games. Specifically you two (pointing my finger at Feliciano and Duaner) will be used earlier than Billy. So if the other team starts to threaten around the 6th inning onward, get ready to go. Billy, you’ll be our traditional “closer” for all intents and purposes, but if the other team’s best hitters happen to be coming up in the 8th inning, then be ready to let it fly.

To Heilman, Wise, and Figueroa: You guys should be prepared to pitch multiple innings. So when the starter starts to fade, you’ll be going in, ideally at the start of an inning, although you may come into a game after a guy puts someone on to start an inning. Most likely you’ll be pitching mid-game, but could be used later on an as needed basis.

To Schoenweiss: You’ll be used in situations when we need to get a lefty out.

I really don’t think this is that difficult. Plus, to make things even more clear, depending on who has pitched, who’s available, who has the flue, who sucks against a certain team, who sucks in a certain stadium, or whatever, you have a quick meeting pre-game and let the guys know when they can expect a call.

Ultimately, there SHOULD NOT be a consistent pattern of bullpen use because baseball is not a predictable game. You can’t just look at a flowchart or some kind of cheat sheet and manage your bullpen off of it.

by SQUAD on May 9, 2008 5:16 PM EDT up reply actions

still not really getting this

So your point is basically that you should be managing the Mets’ bullpen, because your ad-hoc approach, which can’t be formalized into a mere set of rules but depends on your personal gut feeling, is superior to Willie Randolph’s ad-hoc approach? I mean, you’re probably right about that, but I am still not getting what your plan is, specifically, and how it differs from what we have now. Can you explain it in non-hedged, objective, clear language, rather than saying things like maybe we’ll use Heilman earlier, maybe later “on an as-needed basis,” whatever that means?

Also, you’re still wrong about there being a connection between late innings and important innings: remember that many games that are close in the 6th inning are effectively won or lost by the 9th. It’s easy to see that using Wagner in the 6th to keep a one-run lead is more useful than not using him in the ninth because some other guy has already squandered it.

Why I think it needs to be easily explained in a single sentence: because the last few years of attempts to manage bullpens on alternative systems have led to widespread player and dumb-journalist complaints about a lack of fixed roles, and about relievers not knowing how to prepare or when they’ll be called on. Using run differential as an easy proxy for this fixes the problem: game close or tied? Best relievers. Up or down by more than 2 runs? Mop-up men. Even John Rocker could understand that.

by anonymous on May 9, 2008 5:48 PM EDT up reply actions

Just call my system: Use Common Sense

There are two sets of pitchers: shut down guys or “relief aces” and guys who can go multiple innings.

If there is a sticky situation, bring in the relief ace, be it the 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th, 9th inning etc. If it makes things easier for you to understand, use your run differential rule. My question, what do you do if you’re up by 3, but your starter has loaded the bases in the 6th inning? I know the logical answer, but if we’re adhering to a rule that “even John Rocker could understand” then it might not be allowed.

If your starter fades after 5, start the 6th with one of the guys who can go longer. These are the type of pitcher you want to bring in with no one on base and let them start an inning as if they were a starting pitcher.

It is not an ad hoc strategy at all, it’s using pitchers in ways that suits their abilities for situations that call for it. As for using Heilman on an “as-needed basis” it’s because pitchers may not be available that particular day. This is why you can’t be locked into a “rule.” Because situations will arise when the rule needs to be broken.

As for dealing with the media, don’t hold a freaking press conference to announce you’re going to use the bullpen in a novel way. Just do it. I bet you they won’t even notice. As long as you anoint someone the “closer” they won’t give a crap how you use everyone else.

by SQUAD on May 9, 2008 6:24 PM EDT up reply actions

Late Innings

The 6th inning is a late inning.
Most games are lost around the 6th-7th innings when the SP tires.

by acerimusdux on May 12, 2008 12:15 PM EDT up reply actions

I've been saying this for years

You stole it! Just kidding.

Yeah, makes perfect sense to me. There are a bunch of failed or mediocre starters out there that could be lights out in long relief for 3 IP. You should have three of those guys on a set 3 day rotation, so they are getting 2 off days after every appearance. You’re basically turning a #5 SP type into a bullpen ace. And you would get enough innings then from those guys you would only need a 6 man pen.

The other thing a lot of people don’t get is that even if your SP is Santana, once he’s been out there 6IP, a typical #5 SP coming in fresh is going to be about as good a pitcher. For example, here are career splits for three of the Mets SP:

Santana Maine Perez
OPS OPS OPS
.637 .629 .707 1st PA
.611 .699 .766 2nd PA
.699 .866 .808 3rd PA

A lot of people like to harp on how pitchers don’t pitch deep into games today, but they ignore that the reason they don’t is that it’s bad strategy to let them. why leave a guy out there to put up an .800 OPS against, when even the worst guy on your staff ought to be able to do a .750 if he’s fresh?

Jorge Sosa, by the way, would also be good in this role. The Mets are wasting him by trying to use him in short relief, and throwing him out there every day. He’s never been effective as a short man.

And this kind of approach really isn’t that new, either. It’s pretty close to what managers like Sparky Anderson used to do.

by acerimusdux on May 12, 2008 12:04 PM EDT reply actions

You have eloquently and succinctly stated my general thesis...

THANK YOU!

Plus, I had Earl Weaver in mind. This would be a great way to break in young starters as well. Build up confidence, etc. Then, when ready, they graduate to the rotation.

by SQUAD on May 12, 2008 2:36 PM EDT up reply actions