Official 2014 Texas Rangers Spring Training Thread

[romeo212000]

I definitely agree with your general point that a team should want its best pitcher on the mound in the most crucial situations. As discussed in the Schoenfield piece that I posted, however, accomplishing that on a consistent basis over time might be a bit more complex than your highlighted sentence above suggests (e.g., see the discussion early in that piece about how the "firemen" of the '70s tended to regress after too many appearances).

That's a separate issue entirely. I'm not saying you should ride the same guy all the time. I'm just saying, not to use him in such a crucial situation only because he's "the closer" is plain stupid.

 

[Windingmywatch]

That's a separate issue entirely. I'm not saying you should ride the same guy all the time. I'm just saying, not to use him in such a crucial situation only because he's "the closer" is plain stupid.

God I love this subject ... we seem to gravitate to every ST. I am in the "use your best guy that night in the high leverage situation" regardless of when it happens ... 7th, 8th or 9th. Some day I will do the analysis and figure out in what inning the winning run was scored. I don't have the answer ... but I speculate it's not the 9th.

 

[TDs3nOut]

God I love this subject ... we seem to gravitate to every ST. I am in the "use your best guy that night in the high leverage situation" regardless of when it happens ... 7th, 8th or 9th. Some day I will do the analysis and figure out in what inning the winning run was scored. I don't have the answer ... but I speculate it's not the 9th.

It is an interesting subject, particularly since there seems to be quite a bit of evidence that the current model of how to use a bullpen is both suboptimal and widespread. This snippet by Bill James on the current MLB bullpen paradigm, quoted in the Schcoenfield piece, seems to concisely summarizes that paradox:

"This is rather remarkable, isn't it? Nobody studies the issue, nobody explains or defends the strategy in any meaningful way, and there is no dramatic example of a team which adopts this strategy and comes out of nowhere to win a pennant. And yet, within a few years, every major league manager adopts the strategy. How can that happen?

Our language drives our thought."

 

[The Commish]

That's a separate issue entirely. I'm not saying you should ride the same guy all the time. I'm just saying, not to use him in such a crucial situation only because he's "the closer" is plain stupid.

I don't believe anyone can argue with that.

 

[WastinSomeTime]

That's kind of my point. How many times have you seen a team keep their closer (read as best reliever) on the shelf in the seventh inning in an extremely high leverage situation, only to face the bottom of the order in the ninth, or not even get the opportunity to pitch because the lead was given up in the seventh or eighth? What sense does that make? The best pitcher available should pitch the highest leverage situation in any game. For example.

Top off the seventh, one out with runners on first and second. You are tied. Your starter just got pulled and you've got Mariano Rivera, Jason Frasor, and Robbie Ross that has just pitched the last two games in a row. Whoever you bring in is going to face the number three hitter. Who do you bring in?

The answer should be obvious. You bring in Rivera. It's an extremely high leverage situation and you're going against the other teams best hitters. Worry about the ninth when you get to the ninth. If you don't put this fire out, you may not have to worry about the ninth. Frasor has been pretty solid, but you need as close to a sure thing as possible.

Unfortunately, because of the mystical closer title, nearly every manager in the mlb would pitch Frasor because it's not the ninth inning, and you only pitch your closer with a lead in the ninth inning. It makes zero sense, and it can easily cost you the game.

I could not agree with you more. To me it is just common sense but this part of the game has become so robotic in nature. Once you get to the later innings you need to bring in the best available pitcher in a crucial situation.

I also get irritated when a guy comes in and is mowin them down and after an inning he is out and the next pitcher comes in and gets shelled. If a pitcher is looking unhittable leave him in there more than an inning. The Rangers have such a deep late inning bullpen they can mix and match with the best of them.

 

[Xx srs bsns xX]

 

[jta4437]

That's a separate issue entirely. I'm not saying you should ride the same guy all the time. I'm just saying, not to use him in such a crucial situation only because he's "the closer" is plain stupid.

And just to pile on, why do you take a guy thats warmed up and already pitching well out and put one in that's cold and not sure what you're going to get

If Scheppers comes in the 8th inning an strikes out the side, then why wouldn't you leave him in for the 9th?

 

[jta4437]

I could not agree with you more. To me it is just common sense but this part of the game has become so robotic in nature. Once you get to the later innings you need to bring in the best available pitcher in a crucial situation.

I also get irritated when a guy comes in and is mowin them down and after an inning he is out and the next pitcher comes in and gets shelled. If a pitcher is looking unhittable leave him in there more than an inning. The Rangers have such a deep late inning bullpen they can mix and match with the best of them.

Didn't see you had already posted this

 

[TheRangerDude]

That's kind of my point. How many times have you seen a team keep their closer (read as best reliever) on the shelf in the seventh inning in an extremely high leverage situation, only to face the bottom of the order in the ninth, or not even get the opportunity to pitch because the lead was given up in the seventh or eighth? What sense does that make? The best pitcher available should pitch the highest leverage situation in any game. For example.

Top off the seventh, one out with runners on first and second. You are tied. Your starter just got pulled and you've got Mariano Rivera, Jason Frasor, and Robbie Ross that has just pitched the last two games in a row. Whoever you bring in is going to face the number three hitter. Who do you bring in?

The answer should be obvious. You bring in Rivera. It's an extremely high leverage situation and you're going against the other teams best hitters. Worry about the ninth when you get to the ninth. If you don't put this fire out, you may not have to worry about the ninth. Frasor has been pretty solid, but you need as close to a sure thing as possible.

Unfortunately, because of the mystical closer title, nearly every manager in the mlb would pitch Frasor because it's not the ninth inning, and you only pitch your closer with a lead in the ninth inning. It makes zero sense, and it can easily cost you the game.

I see, that makes sense and thanks for the detailed response. I agree with your premise overall-you should use you best players in the game situations that call for them rather than using a scripted formula. Of course even if you do this, a even higher leverage situation can present its self later on in the game an you wouldn't have your best guy. I suppose that's probably a risk worth taking though, rather than trying to predict what will happen later in the game. Besides, its better to worry about what is going on "now."

I think in that type of situation, a traditional closer type might not be who you would want to bring in though. How many times have we seen these types of pitchers completely fold when they inherit runners? Some of them seem to turn into completely different pitchers in these situations. This might happen as once they get this closer role thing in their head, when they enter a game in a different situation, it throws them off their routine or they over think it. As a side note here, it seems like Ross actually always seems to do well with inherited runners.

Anyway, I can sort of understand the other side of the coin too. If you give your relievers roles on the team, it gives them sort of a routine to fall into so maybe they can find a groove and generally know what to expect from night to night. In the end though, it is the most logical to use your best players in the most high leverage situations.

 

[Windingmywatch]

It is an interesting subject, particularly since there seems to be quite a bit of evidence that the current model of how to use a bullpen is both suboptimal and widespread. This snippet by Bill James on the current MLB bullpen paradigm, quoted in the Schcoenfield piece, seems to concisely summarizes that paradox:

"This is rather remarkable, isn't it? Nobody studies the issue, nobody explains or defends the strategy in any meaningful way, and there is no dramatic example of a team which adopts this strategy and comes out of nowhere to win a pennant. And yet, within a few years, every major league manager adopts the strategy. How can that happen?

Our language drives our thought."

I expect that most managers do not have a working knowledge of risk management theory. I know one that surely doesn't.

Maybe they need an iPhone app that will tell him who to get warmed up and when to bring him in. I think a couple of 16yo kids could write it for a high school science fair.

 

[WastinSomeTime]

I expect that most managers do not have a working knowledge of risk management theory. I know one that surely doesn't.

Maybe they need an iPhone app that will tell him who to get warmed up and when to bring him in. I think a couple of 16yo kids could write it for a high school science fair.

Got a chuckle out of that. Don't need sabermetrics to figure that out do ya. Just a stinking brain.

 

[DT LUNA]

Got a chuckle out of that. Don't need sabermetrics to figure that out do ya. Just a stinking brain.

ST underway and the fun and fireworks begin.

 

[romeo212000]

I see, that makes sense and thanks for the detailed response. I agree with your premise overall-you should use you best players in the game situations that call for them rather than using a scripted formula. Of course even if you do this, a even higher leverage situation can present its self later on in the game an you wouldn't have your best guy. I suppose that's probably a risk worth taking though, rather than trying to predict what will happen later in the game. Besides, its better to worry about what is going on "now."

I think in that type of situation, a traditional closer type might not be who you would want to bring in though. How many times have we seen these types of pitchers completely fold when they inherit runners? Some of them seem to turn into completely different pitchers in these situations. This might happen as once they get this closer role thing in their head, when they enter a game in a different situation, it throws them off their routine or they over think it. As a side note here, it seems like Ross actually always seems to do well with inherited runners.

Anyway, I can sort of understand the other side of the coin too. If you give your relievers roles on the team, it gives them sort of a routine to fall into so maybe they can find a groove and generally know what to expect from night to night. In the end though, it is the most logical to use your best players in the most high leverage situations.

You're being too specific. The best pitcher available in any given situation should get the ball. If you're not so good with inherited runners, you're not getting the ball. Closer title be damned.

 

[TDs3nOut]

I expect that most managers do not have a working knowledge of risk management theory. I know one that surely doesn't.

Maybe they need an iPhone app that will tell him who to get warmed up and when to bring him in. I think a couple of 16yo kids could write it for a high school science fair.

LOL That's a funny thought. I don't how easy it would be to come up with an algorithm that would best inform a manager when to make a switch and which pitcher to switch to, but it does seem to me that there is clear room for improvement over the current system, despite how pervasively that system has been implemented for so long all throughout the league.

That such a questionable model of using a pen is so widely used and has been for so long seems to defy the widespread and seemingly well founded capitalistic principle that competition promotes technological innovation that produces better products at lower costs. In the context of the US economy, some observers have suggested American corporations tend to focus too much on short term financial statements, and not enough on the long term success that technological innovation fosters.

To the extent that explanation describes a contributing problem to the US economy, perhaps it analogously describes why MLB managers have not deviated from the way that bullpens have been routinely managed for so long.

 

[WastinSomeTime]

ST underway and the fun and fireworks begin.

Hey, Romeo and Winding started it. And glad they did.

 

[DT LUNA]

Hey, Romeo and Winding started it. And glad they did.

Me too and lots more to come. Those two are pretty darn savvy and fun to follow.

 

[Xx srs bsns xX]

​

 

[DT LUNA]

No one said anything about this but I am glad to hear he is in good shape. He really wanted to close and sounds like he is taking the opportunity serious. Heard also he's been right at mid 90's.

 

[DT LUNA]

​

Thanks Xx. If Colby holds up and comes through that will be so sweet.

 

[Xx srs bsns xX]

Ahhh the sounds of spring.

​

Also - on Feliz... he was hitting 97-98 in the winter league. So his velocity is back. Or so they say....