Comments on: One Stud Closer or Three Good Arms? http://skyking162.com/2008/07/one-stud-closer-or-three-good-arms/ baseball with a hint of lime Wed, 10 Mar 2010 22:38:18 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.3 By: Sky http://skyking162.com/2008/07/one-stud-closer-or-three-good-arms/#comment-1261 Sky Wed, 16 Jul 2008 16:39:36 +0000 http://skyking162.com/2008/07/one-stud-closer-or-three-good-arms/#comment-1261 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.) 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.)

]]> By: studes http://skyking162.com/2008/07/one-stud-closer-or-three-good-arms/#comment-1250 studes Fri, 11 Jul 2008 23:57:40 +0000 http://skyking162.com/2008/07/one-stud-closer-or-three-good-arms/#comment-1250 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. 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.

]]> By: Tom http://skyking162.com/2008/07/one-stud-closer-or-three-good-arms/#comment-1249 Tom Fri, 11 Jul 2008 22:24:32 +0000 http://skyking162.com/2008/07/one-stud-closer-or-three-good-arms/#comment-1249 ahhh. i get it. 4.75 - 4.75 = 0. ahhh. i get it. 4.75 - 4.75 = 0.

]]> By: Sky http://skyking162.com/2008/07/one-stud-closer-or-three-good-arms/#comment-1248 Sky Fri, 11 Jul 2008 19:13:06 +0000 http://skyking162.com/2008/07/one-stud-closer-or-three-good-arms/#comment-1248 The stud closer's posse consists of two replacement-level relievers with 4.75 ERAs who, by definition, provide zero additional value. The stud closer’s posse consists of two replacement-level relievers with 4.75 ERAs who, by definition, provide zero additional value.

]]> By: Tom http://skyking162.com/2008/07/one-stud-closer-or-three-good-arms/#comment-1247 Tom Fri, 11 Jul 2008 19:01:11 +0000 http://skyking162.com/2008/07/one-stud-closer-or-three-good-arms/#comment-1247 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? 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?

]]>