One More Crack at Dissecting Bullpen Usage
Last week I took a look at how the Rays' 2009 high leverage FIP of 4.87 underperformed their season FIP of 4.36 while the average team fares 0.25 better (lower) in high leverage situations. I proposed that this was due to inefficient bullpen management. According to The Book by Tom Tango, pitchers should perform to the same ability regardless of situational leverage. Therefore, teams should use their best pitchers when the moment is the most critical.
| Low Lev | Med Lev | HI lev | |
| TBR | 4.61 | 4.1 | 4.87 |
| AL AVG | 4.51 | 4.52 | 4.25 |
If we are to further isolate High Leverage opportunities by the bullpen only we see this:
| OPS | FIP | |
| Bullpen | 0.713 | 4.32 |
| BP Hi Leverage | 0.791 | 5.18 |
The Rays have basically had a Big 3 in the bullpen this season comprised of J.P. Howell, Dan Wheeler, and Grant Balfour. Based on Tango's study referenced above, these 3 should be receiving the lion's share of high leverage work. Here are their high leverage numbers compared to the bullpen:
| OPS | FIP | |
| BP Hi Leverage | 0.791 | 5.18 |
| Big 3 Hi leverage | 0.653 | 4.07 |
So when the Big 3 have been called upon they have performed by about 0.25 better according to FIP than the bullpen. Yet, the bullpen overall has been a massive failure in high leverage situations. Is that because there were more high leverage innings than innings of availability for the big 3?
Consider this: 26.3% of batters faced by the bullpen were of the high leverage variety. The Big 3 have accounted for 42% of total bullpen usage. 60.3% of high leverage opportunities have gone to the big 3 which means Big 3 high leverage opportunities account for 16% of the overall bullpen use. So the big 3 account for 42% of total usage of which 16% is high leverage. This leave 2/5's of the high leverage spots to the rest of the cast. This does not seem to be the most efficient use of resources as the Big 3 should be able to sacrifice low and medium leverage opportunities for higher spots.
Another point Tommy Rancel has been all over is Joe Maddon's tendency to over extend a starter into a new inning, only to remove them upon the first runner reaching base. The bullpen's OPS against for 2009 is .713. With runners on base, it rises to .824. Similarly, the starting rotation's performance decreases drastically as the lineup flips over for the fourth time.
| OPS | FIP | |
| Bullpen | 0.713 | 4.32 |
| BP w Runners On | 0.824 | 4.37 |
| BA | OBP | SLG | |
| 1PA | 0.250 | 0.319 | 0.409 |
| 2PA | 0.261 | 0.330 | 0.415 |
| 3PA | 0.264 | 0.325 | 0.435 |
| 4+PA | 0.339 | 0.377 | 0.600 |
When a starting pitcher is near 100 pitches as the lineup flips for the fourth time around, the Rays would be well advised to turn it over to their bullpen with the bases empty. The fresh arm should experience greater success without the added pressure of inherited runners.
The last issue to discuss involves frequent pitcher changes once into the bullpen. The average Batters Faced per Relief Appearance in the American League since 2006 is 4.82. In 2009, the Rays are averaging 3.92. The second lowest figure over that period belongs to the 2007 Boston Red Sox at 4.15. Last season with largely the same bullpen the Rays were at 4.55.
The 2009 Rays bullpen is on pace for 507 total appearances or 3.13/gm which since 2006 is second only to the Yankees at 522. Lets take a look at the top 5 bullpens in terms of total appearances since 2006 and compare their Season FIP to that of August. Please note I pro-rated 2009:
| Year | Team | Appearances | BF/App | FIPs | FIPa | difference |
| 2007 | NYY | 522 | 4.49 | 4.64 | 4.69 | -0.05 |
| 2009 | TBR | 507 | 3.92 | 4.36 | 5.2 | -0.84 |
| 2008 | BAL | 492 | 4.97 | 4.74 | 5.13 | -0.39 |
| 2007 | BAL | 490 | 4.92 | 4.85 | 5.37 | -0.52 |
| 2006 | NYY | 489 | 4.63 | 4.47 | 4.8 | -0.33 |
| Avg | -0.43 | |||||
| Avg of All teams | 0.04 |
So the top 5 most worked teams in terms of relief appearances since 2006 all suffered performance drop offs in August while the average change among all teams was a nominal improvement.
Now let's look at the five most taxed bullpens in terms of batters faced:
| Year | Team | Batters Faced | BF/App | FIPs | FIPa |
diff |
| 2006 | KCR | 2581 | 5.46 | 4.97 | 5.26 | -0.29 |
| 2008 | TEX | 2564 | 5.6 | 4.55 | 4.2 | 0.35 |
| 2007 | TEX | 2556 | 5.47 | 4.24 | 3.66 | 0.58 |
| 2008 | BAL | 2443 | 4.97 | 4.74 | 5.13 | -0.39 |
| 2009 | BAL | 2,424 | 5.25 | 4.42 | 4.25 | 0.17 |
| 0.084 |
This is much more in line with the average among all teams of .04. It seems that fewer bullpen appearances that go longer are less fatiguing over a season than more frequent shorter appearances. Perhaps the Rays have not accounted enough for the effort burned during warming up in the pen.
In summary, I am of the opinion that the Rays season was affected by misuse of the bullpen. The best relievers were not used frequently enough in high leverage situations. Starters were left in too long, often the dreaded fourth time around the order, forcing the pen to habitually come in with runners on base, a scenario in which they proved to be less effective. Finally, the entire bullpen broke down during the homestretch due to excessive turnover causing too many bullpen appearances.
118 comments
|
4 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
This might be a dumb question
Consider this: 26.3% of batters faced by the bullpen were of the high leverage variety. The Big 3 have accounted for 42% of total bullpen usage. 60.3% of high leverage opportunities have gone to the big 3 which means Big 3 high leverage opportunities account for 16% of the overall bullpen use. So the big 3 account for 42% of total usage of which 16% is high leverage. This leave 2/5’s of the high leverage spots to the rest of the cast. This does not seem to be the most efficient use of resources as the Big 3 should be able to sacrifice low and medium leverage opportunities for higher spots.
Is it a well known fact that the best pitchers should be used in high leverage situations, regardless of inning, count, batter, etc? If so, why is Maddon leaving 40% to others.
If it’s not a known fact, can we alert Maddon (where are you unknowninsider?)
www.bucem.com - SBNation's source for all things Buccaneer
Well known in the sabermetric community
Not so much among most managers.
Conspiracy theory says the “importance” of saves is driven by player agents. DRB has supported the case against a designated closer for a long time.
Follow Me on Twitter @FreeZorilla
by FreeZorilla on Sep 16, 2009 12:16 PM EDT up reply actions
I attempted to calculate % of big 3 BP use in high leverage sitations for the relative top high lev teams
Player turnover due to injuries, starter conversions, and acquisitions made this too difficult. The Rays were blessed/cursed with the same top 3 all year, save TroyBoy’s few weeks of sunshine.
Follow Me on Twitter @FreeZorilla
by FreeZorilla on Sep 16, 2009 12:18 PM EDT up reply actions
Another question
Starters were left in too long, often the dreaded fourth time around the order, forcing the pen to habitually come in with runners on base, a scenario in which they proved to be less effective
If it involves too much work, that’s fine, but do we have any comparisons in terms of bullpen numbers for other teams with and without runners on? I’m wondering if the Rays were worse with runners on and that’s league average, or if they fared worse than other BP counterparts
www.bucem.com - SBNation's source for all things Buccaneer
Lg Avg for Bullpen W Runners on Would be A Lot of Work
I weeded out the Rays starters for that figure. Lg Avg splits amongst all pitchers are:
No one on: .262/.326/.424
With men on: .270/.344/.427
So OPS increases by .022 across all pitchers both ST and relievers with men on
Follow Me on Twitter @FreeZorilla
by FreeZorilla on Sep 16, 2009 12:14 PM EDT up reply actions
Alright, just was curious if we outperformed or underperformed our AL counterparts
Good stuff though.
www.bucem.com - SBNation's source for all things Buccaneer
Also could be a difference between pitching to your own runner allowed vs walking in cold to face inherited runners
Tough to quantify easily though
Follow Me on Twitter @FreeZorilla
by FreeZorilla on Sep 16, 2009 12:24 PM EDT up reply actions
What is the traditional measure for bullpen's in terms of how often they can be used.
Is it every other day? no mroe than two days in a row? a certain # of pitches over a time span?
www.bucem.com - SBNation's source for all things Buccaneer
This seems to sort of go with the theory that relievers are underworked.
At least on an outing-by-outing basis.
Cool work Zo.
The runners on thing makes no sense to me.
Unless there’s something I’m missing, bringing in Balfour (or Howell or whomever) after the starter gives up a single or a walk is just pointless. It’s like Maddon is scared to death of pulling a guy before he allows a negative result, which is absolutely irresponsible.
I internally debate what I would choose if a starter:
1) Leave game following in an inning during a solid outing
2) Go back out knowing I am coming out with 1 single base runner allowed no matter how flukey.
Starters seem to hate coming out mid-inning after a “bad” note
Follow Me on Twitter @FreeZorilla
by FreeZorilla on Sep 16, 2009 12:47 PM EDT up reply actions
I don't see the point in 2.
If Derek Jeter singles on a grounder that passes through the first base hole, is that really to blame on James Shields? Does that single really change Maddon’s mind as to whether Shields can continue getting outs? Or is he using that as a wedge so he doesn’t get blamed for babying his starters?
If it’s the last one, he should be fired.
by R.J. Anderson on Sep 16, 2009 12:51 PM EDT up reply actions
Agreed, it seems a deep fly out is less concerning to him than a weak grounder that the runner beats out
Too results based. I also don’t know if he’s babying the starter on the other side as in not wanting him to ruin his good start. Its really difficult to rationalize.
Follow Me on Twitter @FreeZorilla
by FreeZorilla on Sep 16, 2009 12:54 PM EDT up reply actions
But do you think it s a philosophical change due to pressing a bit, or did we dismiss it due to results?
Follow Me on Twitter @FreeZorilla
Pressing.
Maddon has made so many irrational decisions this year based on trying to maximize short-term results in favor of long-term sustainability.
by R.J. Anderson on Sep 16, 2009 1:06 PM EDT up reply actions
No way.
Any man with money on the line wouldn’t drop Carlos Pena to sixth against righties.
by R.J. Anderson on Sep 16, 2009 1:10 PM EDT up reply actions
No way.
Any man with money on the line wouldn’t drop Carlos Pena to sixth against lefties.
by R.J. Anderson on Sep 16, 2009 1:11 PM EDT up reply actions
He had money on the Rangers to make the playoffs this year.
Frankly, the whole Ring of Fire thing was pretty fucking embarrassing.
I hate to pick on him at probably his lowest point.
But how much of his perceived value is simply based on his quirkiness?
I don’t doubt he’s a good people person and that’s important too, but I don’t know, I wish James Click could talk him through most situations.
by R.J. Anderson on Sep 16, 2009 1:15 PM EDT up reply actions
How much of his perceived Quirkiness/People Skills was based on his record?
11 losses in a row after falling out of the playoffs does not speak to his players “playing” for him. Both arguments are cliche.
Follow Me on Twitter @FreeZorilla
I'm really not sure.
I’d guess ~50% of it at least.
by R.J. Anderson on Sep 16, 2009 1:20 PM EDT up reply actions
Great work Zo. It sort of disputes an earlier thread
that made the claim that the pen wasn’t so bad afterall, citing at the time, that it was better than 4 of the 5 teams vying for a playoff spot
I’m wondering if last year the pen had more or less high leverage situations to perform in
I don't recall that post -- and I think the key word is "at the time", it's not like we had a bunch of overperformers at the time either -- but to answer your question
2008
HL: 1,224 PA (149 G)
2009
HL: 1,014 PA (132 G)
On a rate basis, that’s one more HL PA per game.
by R.J. Anderson on Sep 16, 2009 12:49 PM EDT up reply actions
when are you going back to Raymondo?
I’m still not used to seeing the all lowercase sternfan1 yet.
www.bucem.com - SBNation's source for all things Buccaneer
Add BACK to POWER ARM and STRONGVILLE in words that require capitalization
Follow Me on Twitter @FreeZorilla
To be clear, this post isn't railing on the pen, but on pen usage
I stand by Balfour, Howell, and Wheeler.
Follow Me on Twitter @FreeZorilla
by FreeZorilla on Sep 16, 2009 12:55 PM EDT up reply actions
I think you re-call the post i'm pointing to
what i’m saying this disects the problem and shows it’s ineffectiveness
I can tolerate Wheeler, and Howell is/can be good when he has command, Balfour is a head case and needs to go far away
Papelbon is a head case too.
So is Rivera.
by R.J. Anderson on Sep 16, 2009 1:00 PM EDT up reply actions
No worse than where you put him
He is an above average reliever. He is neitger HoF worthy nor Out of Baseball worthy
Follow Me on Twitter @FreeZorilla
Mmm, sacrilicious!
No one thinks Balfour is as good as Papelbon (who is hardly a future HOFer) and Rivera. He’s an above average reliever, quit acting like he’s 2007 esque Shawn Camp.
Papelbon throws about 3% less balls than Balfour.
So yeah, three extra strikes per 100 pitches. Woo.
by R.J. Anderson on Sep 16, 2009 1:02 PM EDT up reply actions
I see what about 5 teams before have seen in him
btw, i think we’re ‘dormy’ now
Ah, my apologies, thought you meant on the Rays season, not your bet
www.bucem.com - SBNation's source for all things Buccaneer
Without box score diving, I think the problems with bullpen cuteness started with the decision to carry the extra LOOGY in place of a position player
Follow Me on Twitter @FreeZorilla
I'm pretty sure that's the worst thing this front office has ever done.
And I’m barely using hyperbole.
by R.J. Anderson on Sep 16, 2009 1:03 PM EDT up reply actions
I would agree with that.
We’ve had some iffy moments – for everything you can say about Josh Hamilton and Elijah Dukes, they weren’t good trades – but this is the worst in the sense that there is little, if any, logic behind it.
You could also make a case for Levon.
I wasn’t as angry about it as some people work, but you can’t blow your first round pick.
I'd still go two LOOGY.
They understood LOOGY aren’t hard to acquire and they understand that carrying two is really making poor usage of a roster spot. I don’t get why it lasted so long and I don’t get why they did it in the first place outside of money.
by R.J. Anderson on Sep 16, 2009 1:08 PM EDT up reply actions
If I recall correctly, I think Oakland had three lefties one year, back when Ken Macha basically neglected to use Chad Bradford.
I’m not sure exactly what that was all about either.
But yeah, it was poor planning by Friedman’s part. If it was about cash, sometimes you just have to eat 750,000.
Were any of the lefties taking a roster spot from a bench player?
by R.J. Anderson on Sep 16, 2009 1:11 PM EDT up reply actions
I have a major problem with starting Aki, though I suppose that's a loyalty thing.
Zobrist at 2B and the RF platoon is a better starting lineup than with Aki in it.
I agree.
I also have an issue with the Brignac playing time — or lack thereof — as I stated yesterday.
by R.J. Anderson on Sep 16, 2009 1:14 PM EDT up reply actions
I hate being super critical of Maddon, but there is a laundry list of grievances against him this year.
The Brignac thing is just stupid. You’ve got the kid up, play him. He’s not going to learn otherwise, particularly when Aki probably won’t be back next year.
MGL posted a thread on Maddon yesterday or two days ago.
On The Book Blog. He’s a pretty big anti-Maddon fan — although again, I think this stems from his public perception as a genius and such…not Maddon’s fault, but you know how it goes — and I commented on just things that popped to mind. It’s scary.
by R.J. Anderson on Sep 16, 2009 1:17 PM EDT up reply actions
Matthan's harped on it before, but there's probably shit he did last year that everyone kind of glossed over because we were playing so well.
Hopefully he’s secretly driving Friedman insane.
I'm torn
I am not in favor of replacing Maddon at this point though I am critical. He should reevaluate some of his processes in the offseason however.
Follow Me on Twitter @FreeZorilla
Is he really different from most other mangers?
I would guess not. Is Manny Acta better? No idea.
by R.J. Anderson on Sep 16, 2009 1:24 PM EDT up reply actions
Francona's pretty excellent.
Obviously, he has more expensive players, but I’m not sure his roster is anymore complicated. Excellent bullpen usage, knows how to work a platoon, players like him.
YES WE ARE.
I READ IT ON THE HEATER. WE’RE TRADING UPTON AND BAT FOR HIM. GET THOSE LAZY JERKS OUT OF HERE.
Thats why I am cool with him
We have had team success under him, the players do seem to like him, and no replacement that stands out. Overall he has been good. Just really pressed 2nd half of the year. if he goes back to gray, he can stay.
Follow Me on Twitter @FreeZorilla
I don't ever remember being quite this disillusioned with his body of work.
But yeah, I’m not going to say he needs to go. Hopefully it was a learning experience.
by R.J. Anderson on Sep 16, 2009 1:30 PM EDT up reply actions
The World Series was awful.
I’m not sure if Matthan mentioned instances other than that — he may have, I honestly don’t remember — but yeah, it’s really bad this year and I’m not sure it has to do with our record.
by R.J. Anderson on Sep 16, 2009 1:20 PM EDT up reply actions
It's the classic media trap
Everything is perfect when you’re winning. Bad substition, plays,bullpen/player management. It all gets glossed over. But when losing creeps in, you question everything.
www.bucem.com - SBNation's source for all things Buccaneer
Results based analysis.
But I think most of what we’re dealing with isn’t results based. Like lineup changes.
I care not in the least if Pena is 0 for his last 10 before going down, then goes 20-20. That’s not because he moved down.
by R.J. Anderson on Sep 16, 2009 1:23 PM EDT up reply actions
It has to be money, right?
Shouse 1.5 mil, a buyout at the end of the season. You really can’t bet on any team taking that on.
Choate is probably the guy to keep, he’s cheap, but nobody gives you value.
by R.J. Anderson on Sep 16, 2009 1:14 PM EDT up reply actions
Which is why we probably shouldn't drop 1m plus on relievers are aren't guaranteed to be particularly useful.
I’d rather just play with the Choates and Abreus of the world if payroll’s going to be that tight for the next couple years.
Yes
Sinking money into the Rays pen is nto good use of funds. Sinking is a pretty good term for what we have done with big money relievers.
Follow Me on Twitter @FreeZorilla
Reyes and Percy were okay for short periods of time, but I don't think any reliever we've paid over a million has been worth it.
Was he a million+ salary when we picked him up?
I’m happy with Grant. I think he would have performed better with better management.
That's what I thought.
Dirty, lazy Aussie. Gets a taste of the goods and he becomes a crook. Go back to your filthy, inbred homeland, you god damned Hibernian wretch.
Er, Balfour's Scottish, not Irish, so I guess Hibernian isn't the proper term.
Whatever, he’s a god damn Highland sheep fucker.
I also think we are carrying too many relievers
If you carry an extra reliever and he gets work, that is less work for better pitchers. Too many toys in the chest.
Follow Me on Twitter @FreeZorilla
by FreeZorilla on Sep 16, 2009 12:59 PM EDT up reply actions
You mean the post that was showing that while the bullpen has been a disaster recently
it wasn’t a true indication of their performance over the season?
www.draysbay.com
by Tommy Rancel on Sep 16, 2009 1:48 PM EDT via mobile up reply actions
Big 3
If you go by FIP then Wheeler is not in the top 3. Bradford, Choate, and Cormier all had better numbers.
Bradford has a pretty small sample size, no?
by R.J. Anderson on Sep 16, 2009 1:05 PM EDT up reply actions
I agree
Although it seemed that Springer took alot of Wheeler’s innings when he arrived.
The Springer thing kind of sucked.
He’s a good reliever, but he didn’t really perform well for us. That could have been a Bradford 2.0-type late season move and it just didn’t click.
I agree
But he would bring in Springer with the bases juiced. Thats where you need a gorund baller not a FB pitcher, again mismanagement
Follow Me on Twitter @FreeZorilla
Again, that kind of stuff blows my mind.
You don’t have to be sabermetrically inclined to understand the need for a GB or strikeout there.
And wasn't there one out in this situation?
by R.J. Anderson on Sep 16, 2009 1:18 PM EDT up reply actions
I was being facetious
He has brought Springer in multiple times with runners on base. Remember the O’s game where first Cormier gave up the slammer, walked the first two guys the next inning, leading to Springer?
Follow Me on Twitter @FreeZorilla
Most accurate line i've read in a long time--kudos RJ
Maddon has made so many irrational decisions this year based on trying to maximize short-term results in favor of long-term sustainability.
Two kudos in one post from sternfan, Heart and Soul baby
Must be in an indication that the post tone was negative
Follow Me on Twitter @FreeZorilla
Hire Eric Wedge
as you know i follow the Indians too, and they have been lousy, but not because of Wedge. His players never quit, and he knows how to set up a bullpen when given the talent, Shapiro has failed that franchise, not Wedge
Fans of the Indians call for his scalp daily
As RJ said, Maddon was fine as long as he didn’t start coming up with his own numbers. Now he apparently has

by 







![Zobrist wallpaper I made :]
Actual Link: http://i1207.photobucket.com/albums/bb472/lewiedesigns/Wallpapers/Zobristwallpaper.jpg](http://cdn1.sbnation.com/fan_shot_images/237766/Zobristwallpaper_small.jpg)















