Trey Hillman, Supergenius

http://www.baseballprospectus.com/ar...articleid=8721 subscriber only but good quote:

Quote:

---

On top of the Kyle Farnsworth/Trey Hillman rant yesterday, you may be thinking I'm becoming a bit shrill on this subject. Maybe so, but it's time for this nonsense to end. There shouldn't be "eighth-inning" and "ninth-inning" relievers. Partitioning relievers by how many outs are left in the game was stupid when managers started doing it, and it's even moreso now, as we find every bullpen in the game set up this way.

To all 30 managers, I issue this directive: Figure out who your best pitchers are, or more accurately, who your best pitchers are for various situations. For when you need a complete inning against the middle of the lineup; for when you need multiple innings; for when you need a ground ball; for when you need a strikeout; for when you need to get Jim Thome out. Then use them accordingly regardless of what time it is. Stop relying on the crutch of which inning you're in to make these decisions for you. Your pitchers want roles? Their role is to get guys out.

These are not difficult concepts. Facing the middle of the lineup in the eighth is harder than facing the bottom of the order in the ninth, no matter how many ex-players who are invested in the myth of "closer" say otherwise. Stop using your better pitchers in lower-leverage spots. Getting four outs instead of three isn't going to break anything that wasn't going to break anyway, so stop losing games without getting your best pitcher into them.

Bullpen management is horribly broken in today's game, and the first manager to fix it—Joe Maddon, I'm looking at you—is going to the Hall of Fame.

---

This thread is pretty funny.

No matter who was brought in, that guy might not've "had it" that day. That's the thing about bringing in relievers, even though you know their past track record, you don't really know what they'll have THAT day.

You do know, however, what you've seen the last 7 innings.

And only 90 couple pitches.

So sad.

So so sad.

I still scratch my head at how the human arm must've evolved so much in just 30 years because in the 60's and 70's, pitcher's threw [gasp!] over 100 pitches routinely. And a quick glance at the DL's shows pitchers today are hurt just as much (more I think) then back then.

I know you're all tired of hearing it........ but I'm just sayin'. :)

That is a good quote, and I agree with him about Maddon as well.

More on poor bullpen management...this time, about Bobby Cox and the Braves.

Yeah, no shortage of dumb decisions in the early going.

This is why I'm devoting my new blog to this sort of thing. Should be a fun time </shameless plug>

The one in your sig? I'll be sure to check it out.

Reading the intro, you sound just like me! :p

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoustonGM

More on poor bullpen management...this time, about Bobby Cox and the Braves.

---

Not sure i agree with this as much. I gues in game two he could have saved Gonzales and pitched Soriano 2 innings - as I assume he wasn't in game 3 base on his injury history.

But if the Boyer/Moylan/Campanillo combo coughed up a 7 run lead in game 3, why would using them in game 2 with a 4 run lead have been a better decision.

This is more revisionist history than the Hillman issue - guessing Farnsworth was a bad choice to pitch to Thome when you had 2 better pitchers warmed up - is different than any combo of 3 guys on a ML roster coughing up an 7 run lead and walking in 4 runs. - you have to assume you get 3 innings and not give up 8 runs from anyone.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gRYFYN1

But if the Boyer/Moylan/Campanillo combo coughed up a 7 run lead in game 3, why would using them in game 2 with a 4 run lead have been a better decision.

---

The chance of them giving up a 7 run lead is incredibly slim. They'll likely never do that again. Seidman says that you use the lesser reliever in the 4 run situation, and then, if they start to struggle, bring in the better one...that way, you save your best relievers for when they're really needed...like the next day when your bullpen does struggle incredibly.

A 4 run lead with one inning to go...the chances of your team winning, regardless of whose on the mound, are in the order of 98+%. You don't need your best reliever for that situation.

the thing with cox is, it's poor bullpen management, but that's not why they lost last night. they lost last night because boyer/moylan/etc. pitched like assholes. And frankly, if they can't hold that lead, what good is using them in the last 2 games gonna do? they would've just blown that lead instead.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoustonGM

A 4 run lead with one inning to go...the chances of your team winning, regardless of whose on the mound, are in the order of 98+%. You don't need your best reliever for that situation.

---

True, but I also assume the odds of pretty close to the same if your up by seven runs with 3 innings.

And I agree that Cox made a gaffe by using both Gonzales (who I assume was unavail base on pitch 2 consec games) and Soriano ( who I assume was unvail do to not wanting to over use him with his injury history). But my point is that this was pretty minor, and only looks bad because of how huge a choke job three relievers did, and far less Cox's decision.

Of course, had game three gone inot the ninth 2-1 braves and Cox was in the same position it would have looked worse :)

Sure...I don't think Seidman's point was to blame that loss on Cox completely, like Hillman deserves with the Farnsworth game, but rather to just point out the poor and rigid bullpen management, which is all too common in MLB today.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoustonGM

Sure...I don't think Seidman's point was to blame that loss on Cox completely, like Hillman deserves with the Farnsworth game, but rather to just point out the poor and rigid bullpen management, which is all too common in MLB today.

---

See, with Cox I don't at all blame the way he's managing his pen, because he needs to figure who is going to be his guys. He doesn't really know who his best relievers are, so you might as well give them roles and see how they do. Now, if he doesn't adjust their roles even though it's not working, that would be much worse.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OldFatGuy

I still scratch my head at how the human arm must've evolved so much in just 30 years because in the 60's and 70's, pitcher's threw [gasp!] over 100 pitches routinely. And a quick glance at the DL's shows pitchers today are hurt just as much (more I think) then back then.

I know you're all tired of hearing it........ but I'm just sayin'. :)

---

Nah, I'm right here with you on this. I don't know what happened. I don't understand when six innings became a "complete game" and when bullpens began looking like the Mormon Tabernacle Choir. Sure, we can pull out Randy Johnson and Greg Maddux and John Smoltz - all great pitchers who've had long and distinguished careers. But then, we had Jim Kaat back in the day, and Jim Palmer, and Steve Carlton and Gaylord Perry.

I think, to answer the "question" of this thread, managers are terrified of having what could be called "bullpen by committee". It's such a code word for "we have no one with talent"...but it doesn't need to be. There's nothing that prevents a team from running a bullpen as it was in the 1970's - HGM mentioned Gossage.

Yeah it could be done for sure.

By the way, high five to Tony LaRussa. Even though he is largely "responsible" for the move towards the one-inning, strict closer...he's flexible, going with Dennys Reyes today in a save situation, based on the fact that the three hitters coming up were 2 lefties and a switch-hitter. Playing to the situation, rather than boxing players into innings, good job.