HAL brings in my closer....

who is fatigued at F-0? he'd pitched 4 straight games but HAL still brings him in at F-0? he didn't finish but he didn't lose either. Gagne is the player.

Welcome to my world.

Some somewhat off topic thoughts;

Assuming I have a 12m starting staff and a 9 million relief staff(two good relievers)-

If I was managing the board game, the minute my starter has a man on second, after giving up three runs, he's gone. And I'd put in my best reliever. Then I pitch him, regardless of outcome, until he starts to fatigue. After that, it's bring on the bozos until they get into trouble, then bring the second guy to finish the game.

Their would be countless exceptions to this, but that would be the main theory- Bring in the best reliever during the first tight spot and give my hitters a chance to win it.

I think having your best reliever close out a game is moronic. Your best reliever should be used when he is most needed. He should kill rallies.
The number of times multiple players get on base is small, if you can reduce that number during key moments, your win total would go way up.

I'm not sure why they don't do this in the Bigs.

Anyhow, there is no way to do this in online strat. So I have to endure what they give me.

CTStough wrote:

I think having your best reliever close out a game is moronic. Your best reliever should be used when he is most needed. He should kill rallies.
The number of times multiple players get on base is small, if you can reduce that number during key moments, your win total would go way up.

If I'm not mistaken Bill James subscribes to this theory. I do as well by the way. Proof that great minds think alike.

CTStough wrote:

I think having your best reliever close out a game is moronic. Your best reliever should be used when he is most needed. He should kill rallies.
The number of times multiple players get on base is small, if you can reduce that number during key moments, your win total would go way up.

If I'm not mistaken Bill James subscribes to this theory. I do as well by the way. Proof that great minds think alike.

This is how if was done in MLB until the last 25-30 years.

It was done that way during the days of Sutter, etc because most teams only carried one really great reliever. Starters paced themselves against weaker part of a lineup and went as deep in to games as possible. It was thus handed over to the closer who was the best reliever and he was expected to finish the game. The rest of the bullpen was filler that pitched when the game was out of hand. There starter failed to go deep and you were just looking for someone to eat some innings and give your top reliever some rest.

Then some teams who did not have that one great reliever when asked who they would turn to replied bullpen by committee. In this new model specialists were used more and the type of pitcher was matched up with the situation. This was for many teams successful, especially in recent years with the explosion of so many who can throw high heat or have another highly effective pitch but not enough different pitches to go through a lineup more than once. With more to work with starters were taught to go hard as they could for fewer innnings and then multiple relievers used. The best was saved for only situations where the game was on the line at the end. The theory there is you do not want to waste him in the 7th only to have some bullpen bottom dweller blow the game later and thus wasting the quality job done by your best reliever.

In strat a Dale Murray can be used every game for multiple innings. In real life that leads to fatigue, ineffectiveness, and injury. So it is not done. Strat cards do not feel pressure. Real people do. Thus some pitchers who have good stuff do not handle the pressure of 9th inning game on the line. There is less pressure in the 6th or 7th even coming in with men on because that reliever knows regardless of outcome if he can minimize damage team will have more turns on offense and can still win. That closer in the 9th knows even if entering with bases clean he falters and game is over.

You can often tie a team's success directly to the job the closer is doing. Not always but often. That is why many teams are willing to spend more to get the guy who has proven he can handle the pressure.

I know Bill James says bring that best guy in first sign of trouble when in theory the game is most on the line. But the track record of the few teams who have done that is not good. And the premise is flawed. The game is never on the line more than in the 9th when it is do or go home sad time.

I view this theory much like I do the MIke Marshall pitching theorys. If it worked when tried teams would pile on and copy the strategy. Teams do not copy it because those who have used it have not been markedly successful. Too often you waste the top reliever in the 6th or 7th and then lose the game anyway when the lesser reliever comes in. And worse you have used him in a loss and then he is not rested the next game which could lead to a second loss. I can bring in a Sutter or an Eckersly every game in strat with no penalty. Real life most pitchers become less effective and more injury prone when pitching in 3 or more straight games.

First off, hell yes Valen great post!! You put some thought into that.

I would agree that most ML teams in the 70/80's did exactly what you said, except for one. The Big Red Machine.
I think Sparky (partly out of necessity, partly out of his personality), had a better handle on relieving than anyone in the era.
When circumstances allowed, I think his strategy in relieving a starter and finishing a game tended to be - 1. Kill the rally 2. Chew innings 3. Save the win. That said, he still tried to keep his best reliever for the end of the game. However, Sparky was still pretty flexible in his use of his relievers with regard to order and lefty/righty.
I think LaRussa built on this idea to make his outstanding relief staff on the A's, but his method was based more on what inning it was.

W/ regard to real life, great points, but obviously , I disagree.

To my thinking, I believe the two badass reliever method would work best. One to put out the fire, the other to close out the game, if needed (bums in the middle). I don't believe anyone has tried that. I could be wrong though.

What teams have tried Bill James' method?

As to strat, I have had awful results with Murray, although I may have used him wrong.

yeah, i agree, don't waste money on murray

I think the Rangers have used the 2 stud relievers in a couple recent years. The difficulty for a real team is getting 2 studs. Hard enough to get 1. Wash often used Ogando in 6th or 7th who was money before he got messed up last year trying to transition him to starter. Mike Adams was bridge to closer of Feliz or Nathan. Last year Soria was used flexibly to stop rallies while Tanner was the setup bridge guy. Yankees were able to pull that off with Rivera and Soriano for a couple years. And when they had that 5 year run they had some good middle relievers for the shutdown innings and Rivera for the 9th.

Thing is Bill James would say bring Rivera in for the 7th to shut down the rally and then send him home. Only works if I have another closer quality guy to finish the game. If I do not and most real teams don't then I save the game in the 7th but likely only delaying the loss as the game is then handed over to guys who cannot keep the lead. By the time I find out they have failed it is too late to rest Rivera because he has already pitched. My bullet is shot and my gun is empty. And possibly if that was his second or third game in a row I am spending the next game or two reloading my gun with no bullet available so I lose another game or two. Now I have a losing streak.

Most the time though teams only have 1 truly outstanding reliever like a Rivera, Chapman, or Kimbrel. If you can get the pair your strategy is probably sound. But if you only have the one bullet you have to be wise about when you use it and make certain it counts. A rested Chapman can come in like he did in a recent game throwing 15 pitches over 100 averaging 102 and unhittable. Result 3 strikeouts. But a little tired and he tops out at 100 and is difficult but not the same. He is not going to do that more than 3 times a week, maybe 4 some weeks. Then you are gambling with much lesser pitchers. Waste him once or twice in losses and you probably have a losing week.

If I time those though so he is strictly closing them out and delivering 3 saves and certain wins and all you have to do is cobble together one more win to have a winning week. Consistently have winning weeks and you are playoff bound. Consistently have losing weeks and your bright side is you can sign a free agent without losing a draft pick because your pick is one of the top 10.

My ideal bullpen is Murray, Babe, or Sutter in middle innings and a Rivera, or other top closer for the 9th. But that is fantasy strat. In real life I have one of those guys and then an assortment of failed starters I have to mix and match best I can. With that reality saving my best for when I know it counts.

rivera never seems to live up to his card for me. it's like he has bad luck with the dice against lhbs. they always seem to get hr rolls on their own cards.

Too true about having more than one shut down reliever.

I guess I'm saying, shoot the bullet now.

He's no good to me if I get 50 saves and 50 wins.

NL average of hits and walks this season is 11.4, 4 runs per game. Last year 11.6 4.04 per game.

One way of looking at that is this-
It takes, roughly, three hits and walks to get a run. So to get to three runs, you've already given up almost 9 hits and walks; which leaves you 2-3 left. Opposing team gets a double (or any combination that gets a guy in scoring position), you bring in the fireman and shut him down. Now, the opposing team has two hits left in them(on average); which means, they are done(on average).
Team wins.

Plus, doing it like this almost guarantees your ace reliever gets consistent work- every other day. On off days you play righty lefty specialist and pray.

PS. FMI What does a shut down reliever cost these days in the FA market?