FanGraphs Baseball

Comments

RSS feed for comments on this post.

  1. The market is a joke right now for RP

    Comment by Pirateball — December 16, 2010 @ 11:29 am

  2. To a certain a extent, I agree with your comments. However, would you have posted this article today, or at any point in the offseason, had the White Sox NOT sign any of the free agent relievers available to a multi-year contract?

    Comment by osfib — December 16, 2010 @ 11:31 am

  3. Your comment is nearly unintelligible. Are you suggesting that Dave published this article because he hates the Chisox? That’s absurd.

    Comment by Travis — December 16, 2010 @ 11:35 am

  4. just this title made me giggle into my coffee.

    Comment by Pat — December 16, 2010 @ 11:38 am

  5. And in the meantime, the Rays are signing Peralta to a 1yr 900k contract. Its amazing how some teams just get it and some don’t.

    Comment by Briks — December 16, 2010 @ 11:40 am

  6. A lot of Sox fans will be pissy about Theo not engaging in the RP market.

    But look at these prices. Terrible contract bonanza.

    Comment by Joe R — December 16, 2010 @ 11:48 am

  7. That’s maybe the weirdest suggestion of bias I’ve ever seen. Now, would he have posted it had three of those crazy deals not happened within the past week? Probably not…typical FanGraphs topical-post bias

    Comment by Bill@TPA — December 16, 2010 @ 11:51 am

  8. MLB free agency analysis during the MLB free agency period!? I smell a conspiracy.

    Comment by Reverse Vampires! — December 16, 2010 @ 11:52 am

  9. Because the White Sox not joining in on the parade of multi-year reliever deals would have made this article totally irrelevant!

    Comment by Kevin S. — December 16, 2010 @ 11:53 am

  10. exactly! And Bobby Jenks, who was recently non-tendered, is about to get a big deal as well. Imagine how much better the Reds would have been last year if they had spent those Cordero $ on a real left fielder rather than using Jonny Gomes day after day.

    Comment by chuckb — December 16, 2010 @ 11:53 am

  11. Agreed, until yesterday I was certain that Crain would end up in Boston. Guerrier’s questionable contract made it seem inevitable that Crain (who really is a better set up man) would land some thing similar. Although overly expensive, the Crain deal is marginally better than Guerrier’s.

    Comment by Pat — December 16, 2010 @ 12:02 pm

  12. you just made the word giggle sound dirty

    Comment by Matt — December 16, 2010 @ 12:02 pm

  13. maybe WAR doesn’t “work” for relievers?

    not saying i have a better idea, but if the market keeps paying a certain price over and over for these guys, maybe we’re not looking at it correctly?

    i’m not criticizing the piece, just wondering if replacement level isn’t low enough for “non-closers”? the type of guys who are considered “freely available” middle relievers are minor leaguers who aren’t good enough to start or even close. in other words, they represent the bottom of the barrel in term of professional pitchers. maybe it’s not just so easy to grab a few of these guys and get the same result?

    i don’t know, just thinking out loud, feel free to tear me apart.

    Comment by Steve — December 16, 2010 @ 12:06 pm

  14. Translation:

    Ned Colletti’s an idiot.

    Comment by D4P — December 16, 2010 @ 12:09 pm

  15. To play contrarian, let me ask, which team most over-achieved in 2010? If you said (as I might say) Padres, then you’d also probably agree that a key part of their surprising success was due to the strength of their bullpen, and not just their closer. To some degree, they may be an anomaly (taking advantage of Petco), but perhaps other teams view their surprising 2010 success as a harbinger of things to come, and/or a positive model to follow? Didn’t it seem like the Padres won an awful lot of close games last year? One non-closing relief pitcher, viewed in isolation, may not be (statistically) all that valuable but, in the case of a strong bullpen, maybe the whole is greater than the sum of its parts, and the seemingly free-spending GMs aren’t totally crazy?

    Comment by BEJ37 — December 16, 2010 @ 12:14 pm

  16. This is in line with my comment (below), which I sent before I saw this. I think guys like Downs, Benoit, Guerrier, and Crain are elite non-closing (set-up) relief pitchers — hard to come by, and not easily replaced.

    Comment by BEJ37 — December 16, 2010 @ 12:19 pm

  17. And they brought Howell back for a relative bargain. The Rays should be able assemble a perfectly good bullpen for about the same price as 1 year of Matt Guerrier. As should any team that tries hard enough, right?

    Comment by jamie — December 16, 2010 @ 12:20 pm

  18. I don’t much like Fangraphs WAR for pitchers, in general, because it’s exclusively based on FIP. For relievers, I think it’s even worse than it is for starters, but that doesn’t really change the point of Dave’s article. Just as a comparison, the number in parenthesis is each player’s WAR according to Baseball-Reference over the same period

    Danys Baez (2007-2009 -0.4 WAR (+0.1)
    Justin Speier (2007-2010) -0.2 WAR (+1.0)
    Jamie Walker (2007-2009), -0.5 WAR (+0.5)
    Scott Schoeneweis (2007-2009) -1.5 WAR(-0.6)
    Chad Bradford (2007-2009) +2.0 WAR (+3.2)
    Francisco Cordero (2008-2011) +2.8 WAR (+3.9)
    Mariano Rivera (2008-2010) +7.8 WAR (+10.2)
    Scott Linebrink (2008-2011) +0.5 WAR (+1.1)
    David Riske (2008-2010) -0.6 WAR (-0.5)
    Francisco Rodriguez (2009-2011) +1.7 WAR (+2.3)
    Damaso Marte (2009-2011) -0.2 WAR (+0.5)
    Brandon Lyon (2010-2012) +1.0 WAR (+2.0)

    Every reliever comes out better, but not enough to dispute the point of the article that relievers are greatly overpaid.

    Comment by Erik — December 16, 2010 @ 12:21 pm

  19. But the Padres built that bullpen cheap. Heath Bell made 4 million in arbitration, and no other reliever on their team made over 1 million. And they all performed at the top end of their projections. But even if they hadn’t the Padres wouldn’t have had a lot of risk. I doubt if even the Padres thought their bullpen would be that good. But if teams really wanted to follow the Padres blueprint, they would be building their bullpens with young, cost controlled players, even future starters who are not ready to start yet (the way the Dodgers had previously done with Billingsley and Kershaw). You are likely to have an average bullpen at a below average price, with the chance that if everything breaks right you have a 2010 Padres situation.

    Comment by Briks — December 16, 2010 @ 12:25 pm

  20. The Padres excellent bullpen directly refutes the need to spend millions of dollars signing relievers to multiyear deals. The Padres assembled a fantastic bullpen incredibly cheaply, with only Heath Bell ($4 mil) and Mike Adams ($1 mil) making more than the league minimum. Teams SHOULD use the Padres as a model of how to build a bullpen…but that model says “The volatility and unpredictability of relievers allows you to build a good bullpen without spending much money or signing veteran relievers to long-term deals.”

    Comment by Erik — December 16, 2010 @ 12:25 pm

  21. Relievers are hard to gauge because ERA generally doesn’t work in their favor. One bad outing (1IP 4ER) and 3 good outings (3IP 0ER) can still result in a 9.00 ERA.

    In 2010 Crain pitched in 71 games. Here is the breakdown of games by ER.

    0ER – 60
    1ER – 4
    2ER – 3
    3ER – 3
    4ER – 1

    So 60/71 or 85% of the time he takes the mound he doesn’t surrender a run.

    64/71 or 90% of the time he takes the mound he surrenders 1 ER or less.

    From an innings perspective:
    0ER Outing – 58IP
    1ER Outing – 3.1IP
    2ER Outing – 3.2IP
    3ER Outing – 2IP
    4ER Outing – 1IP

    So 58/68IP or 85% of the innings pitched he doesn’t give up a run in that outing.

    It’s like relief pitchers need the equivalent of the Quality Start. Scoreless Outing, and Scoreless Outing Percentage.

    Or better yet, to gauge all pitchers come up with the % of innings they pitch and don’t get scored upon. The higher the percentage the better the pitcher.

    Comment by striker — December 16, 2010 @ 12:27 pm

  22. That would fail to account for inherited runners, which relievers should bear some of the responsibility for (whereas, with ERA, they have no responsibility for inherited runners).

    Comment by Erik — December 16, 2010 @ 12:29 pm

  23. 3 years might have been a bit much, but $13MM over it for Crain really doesn’t seem that bad.

    Comment by U-G — December 16, 2010 @ 12:38 pm

  24. And yet, that’s often not even the job of the reliever in question. I followed Crain pretty closely last year, so this isn’t a knock on him, but relievers that DON’T always start innings definitely can’t be judged this way.

    If the guy comes in with 1 out and runners on first and second and gives up a slow grounder to advance the runners and then a single that plates both of them, he screwed up. Unless that last hitter manages to score from first with two outs (not likely), the reliever’s ERA is zero, but the guy he replaced gets tagged. The same things happen in reverse to relievers all the time.

    You could check out FanGraphs WPA (Win Probability Added) for relief pitchers to account for a lot of that, but even then, different relievers pitch in difference leverage situations, so even those numbers are a bit misleading at times.

    I do agree on one thing — FanGraphs’ WAR, especially for pitchers, and even more especially for relief pitchers, undervalues the top setup men and closers. Even so, a lot of these guys are getting seriously overpaid. 3 and 13 for Jesse Freakin’ Crain is unbelievable.

    Comment by ToddM — December 16, 2010 @ 12:38 pm

  25. Beaten to the punch, as usual.

    Comment by ToddM — December 16, 2010 @ 12:39 pm

  26. Some folks on here, if Dave said the sky is blue, they’d insist it isn’t and proclaim it another example of bias (because after all, blue is one of the M’s colors, and so clearly he only said it because he’s a myopic Seattle homer).

    Comment by The Ancient Mariner — December 16, 2010 @ 12:42 pm

  27. As I suggested in my comment to Steve, my impression is that elite set-up guys like Benoit, Downs, Guerrier, and Crain (and Adams and Gregerson) are nearly as rare, and possibly nearly as valuable, as closers. They are NOT dime a dozen, readily available through most teams’ farm systems. Maybe the Padres were just lucky, or maybe Towers et al. are exceptional at spotting talent (interesting to see how the D’backs pen does, next year), but I’m not convinced that other teams can match (or even come close to) the Padres’ success on the cheap.

    Comment by BEJ37 — December 16, 2010 @ 12:51 pm

  28. In general I agree with the point of this article (relievers, in most cases, are over-priced), but I’m not sure basing it on the (IMO extremely flawed) FG FIP WAR figure (which, if I’m correct, uses the, again IMO, ostensibly ill-thought-out “chaining” philosophy to correct for leverage) is the best way to demonstrate that.

    Comment by Felonius_Monk — December 16, 2010 @ 1:01 pm

  29. Top notch analysis.

    Comment by Ricky — December 16, 2010 @ 1:03 pm

  30. Is Jason Frasor gonna end up closing in Toronto?

    Comment by MFG — December 16, 2010 @ 1:03 pm

  31. I just looked at 5 of these guys (Speier, Baez, Riske, Linebrink) and none had the talent to begin with. They all had career xFIP before the contract above 4.00 and got paid for small sample sizes where thye looked to dominate.

    This is a case of teams looking at stats like ERA and paying based on that. I would like to see WAR for these players the three years leading up and see how much difference they were from projections for the next three.

    Comment by Troy Patterson — December 16, 2010 @ 1:16 pm

  32. Sorry i meant 4, but I’m sure I could find a fifth to fit my case.

    Comment by Troy Patterson — December 16, 2010 @ 1:17 pm

  33. The market is a joke right now.

    Comment by gnomez — December 16, 2010 @ 1:34 pm

  34. I agree, Dave has a long, storied history of picking on the White Sox.

    What a poopy-head.

    Comment by Small Sample Goodness — December 16, 2010 @ 1:35 pm

  35. Dave, the only acceptable comments after a White Sox trade and or signing are as follows

    1. “Another, savvy, under-the-radar move by KW”
    2. “Cubs Suck”
    3. “Cubs Suck”

    Comment by Steve — December 16, 2010 @ 1:42 pm

  36. I agree 1000% with the above comments by Steve, BEJ37, and Erik about (Fangraphs) WAR and relievers.

    Comment by WY — December 16, 2010 @ 1:42 pm

  37. I agree. Some Fangraphs writers like to trumpet the correlation between Fangraphs WAR and team performance, with Fangraphs win values and free-agent signings, and so on. Yet their model is clearly out of line with the reality in terms of how teams actually value relievers. Rather than examining their own model, the response of (at least some) of these Fangraphs writers is to conclude that the GMs who make these deals–who know much more about baseball than anyone who writes for Fangraphs–are idiots.

    Comment by WY — December 16, 2010 @ 1:45 pm

  38. “That last sentence should read, “Rather than examining their own model, the response of (at least some) of these Fangraphs writers is to conclude that the GMs who make these deals –- who know much more about baseball than anyone who writes for Fangraphs –- are idiots.”

    There was some reformatting done with a couple of the em-dashes…

    Comment by WY — December 16, 2010 @ 1:47 pm

  39. “hard to come by, and not easily replaced”

    Except they’re not, and they’re not. 0.15 WAR is almost the very defnition of replacement level – just 0.15 WAR away!

    Comment by Jason B — December 16, 2010 @ 1:54 pm

  40. Erik just totally nailed it. Totally. Nailed. It. Middle-relievers are so, so very fungible. Use them while their cheap and then trade them away to teams who will overvalue/overpay for that skill set, or release them when they get expensive and start all over with another bunch who can accomplish the same at a fraction of the price.

    Comment by Jason B — December 16, 2010 @ 1:57 pm

  41. If you’re in Seattle, the sky is most likely gray :)

    Comment by neuter_your_dogma — December 16, 2010 @ 2:08 pm

  42. I think teams are also looking at Arizona’s bullpen performance and seeing the flip side of the coin. And obviously, this is part of volatility. Teams seem to be approaching free agent reliever evaluation with the idea that pitchers with a proven track-record (or even just one good year) are inherently less risky. Teams want to smooth the volatility of performance, and this is the only answer that they see. Obviously, you can debate whether free agent relievers are less volatile at all, especially over a period of 3 years.

    Comment by chisxo24 — December 16, 2010 @ 2:37 pm

  43. It seems that the sample is only of free agent signings and excludes contract extensions. While it may be legitimate to separate out these groups (contract extensions may skew more towards younger relief pitchers entering peak seasons, no one’s in the market for someone who’s already signed to another team), it may help paint a fuller picture to examine RP’s who’ve gotten a 3+ year contract extension before saying RP’s don’t deserve multi-year deals.

    The contract extension that immediately leaps out to me is Joakim Soria, who signed a multi-year extension early in the 2008 season and has gone on to post 5.5 WAR in the past three years (although a portion of the 2008 number came before he signed the extension)..

    Comment by Tom B. — December 16, 2010 @ 2:46 pm

  44. I’m fine with the opinion that not all relievers are worth multi-year deals, but using WAR to prove the point doesn’t really do much for me. It’s a heavily flawed statistic and there is too much room for interpretation when calculating WAR.

    There are more things to take into account when signing relievers. In some cases, it may be more cost effective to solve bullpen issues internally, but there is higher risk involved with using a pitcher from your farm system who has no MLB experience than to sign someone with an MLB track record. Free agency is an earned privileged and just the fact that the pitcher is on the open market to begin with shows consistency at the major league level.

    No team is forced to sign a reliever to a multi-year deal, yet it happens when the alternatives are limited.

    Comment by Jacob — December 16, 2010 @ 2:55 pm

  45. It’s all about the free supplemental picks, baby.

    Comment by Blue — December 16, 2010 @ 4:23 pm

  46. I wonder if we’re underestimating the cost of wins on the free market in general. It makes no sense to give a reliever a three year contract. It also makes no sense to give Johan Santana or CC Sabathia or Jason Werth seven year contracts.

    The open market gives more years and money than I’d rationally expect across the board. Not just to relief pitchers.

    Comment by David — December 16, 2010 @ 4:43 pm

  47. Jason, I think you missed his point. He was trying to say that maybe those relievers really aren’t just +0.15 above replacement. He speculates that replacement level might be too high for these players, so maybe that average of +0.15 is really more like +1.0 or something. How low (or high) the bar is set changes the overall valuation.

    Comment by Nathaniel Dawson — December 16, 2010 @ 4:47 pm

  48. The Twins are going to be a perfect case study. We will see how well their bullpen performs next year (and subsequent years) without Crain, Guerrier, Rauch, Fuentes, et al. It will be interesting to see who they have pick up those innings.

    Comment by Dan — December 16, 2010 @ 4:54 pm

  49. Despite my snark above, here’s what I think is going on.

    Most teams are pretty set in position players and starting pitchers. When they perceive themselves to be close to contention and a handful of wins could make a difference replacing two or three replacement level arms in the bullpen is just a heck of a lot easier than trying to upgrade somewhere else. There’s ALWAYS room in a bullpen for another good arm while adding a 1 or 2 win upgrade at a position is a bigger pain in the butt.

    Comment by Blue — December 16, 2010 @ 5:26 pm

  50. Or maybe if you just threw some of those minor league free agent or AAAA relievers into the bullpen you’d find that they gave you about the same result as the sample above. Maybe B-Rs WAR numbers are better than Fangraphs, but I’ve never seen a single compelling argument that these guys aren’t easily replaceable. Smart teams build bullpens for next to nothing all the time.

    Comment by Cheese Whiz — December 16, 2010 @ 8:06 pm

  51. So a few things about some sort of new relievers replacement level:

    First, all pitchers are not still just pitchers, no? This isn’t really the same thing as awarding positional scarcity points for players that have the skill to field SS or catcher. Middle relievers are middle relievers because they kinda suck. It is self-selecting. Also, even closers, outside a few exceptions, are closers because they couldn’t be starters for one reason or another (they can’t throw 100 pitches at a time, they don’t have a quality 3rd or even 2nd pitch, they are only good against same-handed batters).

    I don’t see why we should award a lower bar to pitcher that come in during the middle innings just because they kinda suck. They still just pitch. They aren’t fielding a tough position where it is harder to find good batters.

    Second, relievers already have the advantage of not throwing to the same batters multiple times during a game. Its been clearly documented that relievers as a group have lower FIPs than starters probably largely for this reason, despite starters generally having more talent. Currently, WAR doesn’t adjust for this factor, right? So, they have a natural advantage there anyway, why give them a new artificial advantage?

    This idea that WAR for relievers might be broken looks good on its face, but I don’t really see any evidence that this is the case.

    Comment by Wally — December 16, 2010 @ 8:10 pm

  52. The other issue is simply sample size. Most relievers don’t get more than 50 innings a year. In a sample size that small almost any result is possible unless the player is a truly elite talent, which middle relievers by definition are not. There is simply no way to guarantee a good return on your investment with that kind of volatility.

    Comment by Cheese Whiz — December 16, 2010 @ 8:11 pm

  53. It is when you could get the same performance for league minimum.

    Comment by Cheese Whiz — December 16, 2010 @ 8:13 pm

  54. Is the Jenks signing going to be among the worst signings of this offseason? At least it’s only 2 years, but wow, $6M, poor Daniel Bard!

    Comment by Brandon Heikoop — December 16, 2010 @ 8:42 pm

  55. Further building on WPA, Fangraphs released (and has on its individual player pages) shutdowns and meltdowns:

    http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/index.php/fun-with-shutdowns-meltdowns/

    Comment by Bascinator — December 16, 2010 @ 8:44 pm

  56. why “poor daniel bard”? this just means that the Red Sox have a Proven Closer(TM) to step in when Papelbon leaves as a free agent, leaving Bard in his current and much more valuable fireman role.

    Comment by williams .482 — December 16, 2010 @ 9:17 pm

  57. Well, it’s a combination of supply and demand, expectation management, the evolution of the game, the way sabremetrics measures value and visibility.

    When a guy does his job and gets three outs in the 7th or 8th everybody just assumes that’s what he was supposed to do and he really gets little credit. It’s hard to rack up WAR pitching 2 or 3 innings a week and you don’t even get saves to show for it.

    On the other hand, give up two runs without getting three guys out just one time out of five and you stand out like a sore thumb. The fanbase wants to run you out of town. Maybe relievers need short memories, but fans and front offices never forget. Yet the average team still needs one or two of these guys to not spit the bit almost every night.

    Add to that the fact that just about all relievers are guys not good enough to be starters and set up men are guys not even good enough to be closers and you have a perfect storm of marginal pitchers who dissappoint all too often. If these guys could pitch 6 innings without giving up 3 or 4 runs they’d be in the rotation. Anybody who shows the glimmer of a hope of regularly getting three outs late in a game will be overvalued.

    Comment by MikeS — December 16, 2010 @ 9:49 pm

  58. While this post about the White Sox is obviously a little nutty, I will be interested to see how the “SABR” crowd reacts to Theo giving Bobby Jenks $12M/2.

    Comment by Steve — December 16, 2010 @ 9:58 pm

  59. This stuff about relievers being overpaid is almost as annoying as the complaints about it NOT being the year of the pitcher. We get it.

    But anyways, the White Sox needed a reliable RHR, and the free agent market for relievers has exploded. They have Sergio Santos and Tony Pena. Santos stuggled in the second half and has been pitching for a yeah and a half. Pena just isn’t really that good.

    I’m sure Ken Williams knew he was overpaying, but after declaring he’s going “all-in” and handing out big contracts to Dunn and Konerko and resigning Pierzynski, would it really make sense for him to rely on some retread? Or wait for the market to correct itself and risk ending up with nothing? Not really.

    Comment by PG — December 16, 2010 @ 10:48 pm

  60. I’m shocked that teams haven’t wised up to this concept yet, especially in light of these deals and the success a league-minimum bullpen like San Diego had in 2010. The Rays seem to be doing a good job, but we’ve seen teams spend even more freely on marginal talent than usual.

    Jesse Crain had a tremendous 4-month run. I watched every outing first-hand, as a Twins fan, and yes, he was dominant. But this is a guy with a tremendous history of injury, and the White Sox (like the Dodgers, Tigers, etc.) have completely missed the point of sample size.

    You see it often times with position players or starting pitchers (recent examples include Adrian Beltre, Carl Pavano), where a guy who’s had some bad luck will sign a one-year deal with incentives and try to position himself for a better contract next season. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn’t (Sheets, Harden). But even the successful players come with marked risk — their success is very recent, over the course of one season, and you’re looking to commit for three, four, maybe five seasons. Will a team like the Angels pay Adrian Beltre for five years based on one good season? Probably. Should they? I think conventional wisdom says no.

    And yet with relievers, the sample size on which they’re based is even more microscopic, thus escalating the risk exponentially. If Chien Ming Wang had come back at the end of last season to make eight or nine strong starts and totaled 55 innings, would he have suddenly netted a multiyear deal? Doubtful. His health and success would be questioned because it was limited to only nine appearances. Yet this concept is still lost on the relief market.

    On June 5, Crain’s ERA sat at 5.47. He was in the midst of a miserable season. His next 42.1 innings saw him allow four earned runs and strike out 42 hitters. He held opponents to a ridiculous .163/.272/.191 line. He was utterly dominant. And those 42 innings earned him $13M.

    In what other realm of baseball are players judged on such an absurdly small sample size? Could Jermaine Dye have signed on with the Pirates and raked for the final five games of the regular season (45 innings), and then gone on to sign for three years? Jesse Crain threw 1099 pitches last season. Joaquin Benoit threw 941. Matt Guerrier threw 1045.

    That’s about as many pitches as a starter will throw over the course of six weeks, and yet GMs treat such small numbers (Hell, even smaller in Crain’s case, since his first two months were awful) as the basis for handing out $10M-$16M.

    There’s simply no logic in it, and it shows through the volatility of their performances. Relief pitchers will always be unpredictable, because their sample size over the course of a season is nothing more than a slump or a hot streak in a starting pitcher’s standard season. Shelling out money and expecting them to be consistent, then scratching your head when that’s not the end result is lunacy. Kudos to the GMs who shy away from it. Your money is better spent elsewhere.

    Comment by MorneauVP — December 17, 2010 @ 2:13 am

  61. Who’s to say Crain is anything more than a re-tread? He had four good months, but he was nothing special from April 2007 – June 2010.

    Your perception of Crain is the precise element that’s wrong in the analysis of relievers that leads to these deals. You say Sergio Santos struggled in the second half, but that sample size is barely smaller than the one you use to insinuate that Crain is a slam dunk.

    Comment by MorneauVP — December 17, 2010 @ 2:17 am

  62. That’s what I was going to say.

    WAR doesn;t work for relievers, for a variety of reasons, including but not limited to limited innings pitched.

    This aspect is brought up every single time WAR and relievers are being discussed, yet relievers are continually being evaluated with WAR.

    It doesn;t make sense.

    Pick anything else, % of inherited runners scored, runs allowed (period), % of appearances allowing zero runs/hits/runners, etc.

    I don’t know that I necessarily have the best answer either, but I am confident that there must be something better than WAR.

    Talk about the anture of the position and how due to such small innings, stats can vary widely year to year, because everyone knows how important a good bullpen is. It is especially evident during a year when an otherwise good team has a poor bullpen. That’s Hell.

    Comment by CircleChange11 — December 17, 2010 @ 9:20 am

  63. Go ahead and tell me, right now, which 5 relievers are going to deliver top notch relief performances in 2011 for league minimum.

    We know there will be some, I’m asking you to name them, so that GM’s know which guys to sign.

    Comment by CircleChange11 — December 17, 2010 @ 9:24 am

  64. Great post. Sample size, IMO, is the key issue. It’s the equiavelnt of basing a batter’s season on one month’s worth of data.

    We say crazy things like relievers are fungible or volatile or can be siubsituted for replacement level guys, etc.

    What we really need is a “Quality Appearance” stat or something of that nature which looks at how many appearances a reliever made, and quantifies how many of those were situations where they “did a good job”.

    Due to small IP numbers, a soingle outing can have to great of an effect on the overall.

    We know this for every other player, except I guess, for relievers. Seems like we know better, but choose not to follow it through.

    At this point, I wonder if it is because it feeds our bias that relievers are just failed starters (I hate that expression) that can replaced with anyone “off the street”.

    Comment by CircleChange11 — December 17, 2010 @ 9:29 am

  65. If I told you how easy it is to get a job in this recession, you wouldn’t believe me. But the truth is more employers are going online to find people just like you and me who are ready to work at a good job (one that pays good!). The only thing that makes sense is to stop wasting time driving around all day filling out a dozen applications and going from one boring low paying job to another. I found this site that pretty much matches you up with your dream job that is available in your city right now. I have found it very helpful. Go to YouFindWork.com

    Comment by CarlosM7 — December 17, 2010 @ 9:45 am

  66. I never said Crain was a slam dunk. I’m saying he’s more reliable than someone like Manny Delcarmen, for example.

    And Santos’ poor second half can’t be treated the same as a poor second half by the average relief pitcher. Santos didn’t start pitching AT ALL until the tail end of the 2009 season, and the results in the minors weren’t pretty. He had an incredible start to the season, but it was obvious that the league caught up to him as the season wore on. To count on him as your primary RHR would be foolish.

    Comment by PG — December 17, 2010 @ 10:11 am

  67. WAR works for relievers the same way FIP and xFIP do. The guys at FanGraphs know this.

    Comment by Brandon Heikoop — December 17, 2010 @ 10:50 am

  68. Circle,

    This “Quality Appearance” stat, would still be subject to the same sample size issues, and not resolve the general criticisms of evaluating relievers, if we assume those criticisms are valid in the first place.

    Comment by Wally — December 17, 2010 @ 2:53 pm

  69. In the same regard that “everything” is subject to small sample size for relievers.

    The point is, with something like ‘Quality Appearance’ is that one horrible outing doesn’t ruin or skew the season stats.

    A reliever could pitch 6 scoreless innings over 6 games, and then give up a 3-run homer in the 7th, and most metrics would represent the season stats as “average”. Now, how the 6 out of 7 (quality appearance) stat compares depends on what the stats are of other relievers. If the average reliever has a quality appearance 2 out of 3 times, then we have our baseline comparison.

    It’s really not that difficult. I don’t think we have a good method of evaluating relievers yet.

    I think the first that has to happen is for us to stop viewing relievers as the second-class citizens of the pitcher community. All relievers do not fall under the same umbrella. There’s quite a bit of difference between the long reliever whose 5.42 K/9 stats fall under the same heading as the flamethrowing reliever whose 10.54 K/9 renders him dominant.

    When it comes to sabermetrics, player evaluation, and relievers, I don’t think we’re very accurate at all. I think we often get the conslusion we want in order to hold onto beliefs and opinions that we enjoy having … especially the comments/research about using the ace reliever in the 7th if that’s where the highest leverage situation is (especially when we can look back with hindsight and easily see when the highest LI situation is). It’s not see easy to see in the 7th inning that NOW is the highest LI of the game. Duh.

    Comment by CircleChange11 — December 17, 2010 @ 3:30 pm

  70. Doesn’t anyone else find it interesting that the author picked “three or more” years instead of any “multi year” contract, as per the article title. I guess this was to avoid including the multi year success stories of Jose Valverde, Kerry Wood, Brian Fuentes, etc.

    Fact is, most multi-year (multi being “more than 1″)contracts are not “worth it”, this does not hold specific for relievers, but all MLB free agents – see Raul Ibanez, Milton Bradley, Pat Burrell, Oliver Perez.

    Comment by Brandon Heikoop — December 17, 2010 @ 3:37 pm

  71. Am I the only one who can’t stand CircleChange11.

    Comment by Koch — December 17, 2010 @ 6:02 pm

  72. I hope they enjoy the Crainwrecks. When he breaks down, Crain doesn’t have the ability to adjust, and will usually give up a whole mess of runs. Hopefully his new coach has a shorter leash than Gardy, I can think of 3-4 games just last year that Crain lost for the Twins when Gardy left him in there too long.

    The guy should be making minimum wage carrying baseballs to the umpire.

    Comment by Shagomir — December 18, 2010 @ 3:53 am

  73. B-R uses a lower replacement level than Fangraphs, so their WAR totals are typically higher. It’s systematic, and it means nothing. An 8 win season using Fangraphs WAR is pretty much the same as a 10-win season using B-R WAR, from what I understand.

    The point is, don’t sign a reliever to a long-term deal.

    Comment by Shagomir — December 18, 2010 @ 3:59 am

  74. How do 2 year contracts not count as multi-year contracts? You need to change the title of this post.

    Comment by Lanidrac — December 18, 2010 @ 4:40 am

  75. Probably not.

    Comment by CircleChange11 — December 18, 2010 @ 2:18 pm

  76. CircleChange11 is a fucking cocksucker.

    Comment by Bang Bang — December 19, 2010 @ 7:44 am

  77. The problem with this seems obvious though, and you said it yourself: the Padres got lucky. Very lucky. In order for them to be as good as they were they needed most of their guys to overperform. That can’t be the smart way to build a good bullpen. That would be like building a team that’s going to play .500 ball most of the time and will occasionally make the postseason. That’s all right if you’re small market, but how should teams with more options proceed, and how should teams that are solid everywhere but their bullpens proceed?

    Comment by Jack Str — December 20, 2010 @ 5:49 am

  78. Teams panic if they have a bullpen that isn’t clutch with a guy for the 7th inning, a setup man, and a closer. I think this is what we’re seeing… the Red Sox made how many offers to relief pitchers for multi-year deals? After they had made a huge splash with free agents(but when you have Lackey, Dice-K, and the wild-card Beckett), maybe it’s pretty smart. The Yankees then followed suit…

    But teams who’ll give Burnett, Lackey, and others crazy contracts with their best years behind them with money to burn… but that Cordero contract looks insane. Not to mention why’d the Red Sox give Jenks so much money when they already have Papz in decline apparently. Will Jenks make Papelbon actually fear for his closer job and bounce back? Doubtful… but I can see why they offered Rivera so much. He won’t drop off until he’s about 45 years old?

    Comment by Kyle — December 21, 2010 @ 2:54 pm

  79. “Pick anything else, % of inherited runners scored, runs allowed (period), % of appearances allowing zero runs/hits/runners, etc.”
    ———–
    My personal fave for relievers is RE24. It may not take into account ballpark effects or the quality of defense behind you, but i think it gives you a pretty good idea how much a pitcher can pitch his team out of, and into, trouble.

    Comment by David K — February 15, 2011 @ 3:47 pm

  80. I intended to post you the tiny remark to help give many thanks once again regarding the unique advice you have shared above. It is so seriously open-handed of you to allow freely just what most people could have marketed for an electronic book in making some cash for their own end, certainly given that you could possibly have tried it if you ever desired. Those techniques also worked to become a good way to realize that other individuals have the identical passion just like mine to know a whole lot more with reference to this problem. I’m certain there are lots of more pleasurable instances in the future for many who looked at your site.

    Comment by Erin Andrews — November 7, 2011 @ 9:16 am

  81. I clicked through to this article after reading the story on Paplebon signing with the Phillies. This article speaks for itself, I would rather take my chances on three guys in the $2-$3M range, as opposed to going “all-in” on one “closer” who makes $10M+.

    As a Phillies fan, I am compelled to ask, why is Brad Lidge not on your list of bad contracts. I believe his WAR from 2009-2011 was right around zero, yet he was paid almost $40M for those years on the deal he was signed to in mid-2008.

    Comment by Ryan — November 18, 2011 @ 1:17 pm

Leave a comment

Line and paragraph breaks automatic, e-mail address never displayed, HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>


Close this window.

0.190 Powered by WordPress