I made a bold statement in a DRaysBay game thread last night, which properly got called out for lack of rationale. That just made me want to see if I was really talking out of my ass or not:
One stud closer is worth the same as three 3.75 ERA relievers.
Below is some quick analysis of that question, but what’s your gut feeling? Would you rather have Joe Nathan and two replacement-level setup men or three Scott Linebrinks?
Assumptions
- Replacement level ERA for relievers is 4.75. This is one run better than replacement level ERA for starters.
- Relievers throw 72 innings in a full season. It’s a multiple of nine, which will make the math simpler.
- The top three spots in a bullpen have leverage indeces of 2.0, 1.5, and 1.25. This means that the “closer” pitches in situations that are, on average, twice as important as the average situation. (1.5 times as important for the main setup guy and 1.25 times as important for the third guy.)
- The stud reliever has a 2.50 ERA. This isn’t quite Papelbon/Mariano territory, but there aren’t more than five relievers whose skills can support an ERA this low.
The Three 3.75 Relievers
(4.75 - 3.75) * 72 / 9 * (2.0 + 1.5 + 1.25) = 38 leveraged runs saved
The Stud Reliever With Two Shmucks
(4.75 - 2.50) * 72 / 9 * 2.0 + two nothings = 36 leveraged runs saved
So… one stud reliever is worth about the same as three 3.75 ERA relievers. That’s not the common opinion. You hear a lot about teams looking to add a bullpen arm to shore up the end of the bullpen, whereas upgrading an already deep bullpen to one with a stud closer is worth almost twice as many wins. And, come playoff time, having a stud reliever is even more valuable, because he can pitch in a higher percentage of the games. Of course, teams competing for a playoff spot are more likely to already have a bullpen ace.
Popularity: 9% [?]
Share This
Sky is a baseball fan and racket sport afficianado living in upstate NY. His favorite color is orange and is just about ready to give up on his life-long dream to become the next Magnus ver Magnuson (World's Strongest Man). His favorite baseball teams are the Yankees and Red Sox, proving that there's hope in the Middle East.
July 11th, 2008 at 2:01 pm
Are you just comparing the 3 MRs vs 1 CL in a vacuum, not considering the 2 league-avg MRs that would fill the place of the “good” relievers on the side with the stud closer?
Also, it seems to me that
1) postseason leverage index should automatically be a LOT higher (for any play), so that would make the stud closer much more of an asset in the playoffs. I think.
2) a bunch of good MRs might be more useful to a team whose starters are more prone to only last into the 5th or 6th innings, vs a team that has a couple Roy Halladay or Lackey/Saunders types that can reliably go into the 7th or even 8th innings, becoming their own setup men essentially.
But interesting. Have you been exonerated over at DRaysBay?
July 11th, 2008 at 2:13 pm
The stud closer’s posse consists of two replacement-level relievers with 4.75 ERAs who, by definition, provide zero additional value.
July 11th, 2008 at 5:24 pm
ahhh. i get it. 4.75 - 4.75 = 0.
July 11th, 2008 at 6:57 pm
Cool exercise. I think there’s probably a flaw in the math, however, when it comes to applying LI to replacement-level pitchers. Because they’re worth zero, multiplying time 2, 1.5 or whatever doesn’t have any impact.
But I don’t think this reflects reality. A replacement-level reliever will have more negative impact in higher-leverage situations. Of course, this can be fixed by making those relievers just slightly better or worse than replacement level.
Another issue, though, is that the middling relievers will throw more innings than the stud closer. They won’t all throw 72 innings. If you’re going to set LI’s at 2, 1.5 and 1.25, I’d set the innings at something like 70, 80 and 85. Something like that.
Neither of these issues will have a big impact, however. Your overall point doesn’t seem far off to me. I think the common trap is that a 3.75 ERA in relief is not as impressive as it sounds.
July 16th, 2008 at 11:39 am
Your last point is a good one, studes. Another way to put it is that most people don’t realize you shouldn’t expect anything worse than a 4.75 ERA from a reliever. (Not that you would use ERA to judge relievers.)