Bullpen usage - Something so awesome... !

[sfeldkamp]

If you are like me, you kind of hate the current bullpen usage in MLB and would like your team to use a more leveraged approach, where your best relievers are used when the game is on the line, no matter what inning that is, and your worst relievers pitch fewer innings throughout the year. I didn't see a setting in game setup for this, but I had a thought, I wonder what would happen if I didn't assign an pitchers any of the reliever roles? I took a chance and the early returns are better than I hoped. Take this game for instance.

Starter goes 7.2 innings, but has given up a run in the 8th to bring the opposition to within one with runners on 1st and 2nd. My manager (I sim) brings in Joakim Soria from the bullpen, who is mind you, not in the closer role and he finishes the game off for a 4 out save.

I've also seen a similar game where Soria came in in the 7th and part of the 8th when the opposition was threatening and then another pitcher finished the game off after we scored a few more runs.

Right now I do designate a mop-up reliever so that good quality relievers aren't used in this low-leverage situation.

It's been about a month of games, with me looking at every game log. Bullpen era rank has improved quite a few ranks (though I did replace one underperformer).

Has anyone else tried this?

[Kelric]

I haven't done it that way, but in modern usage leagues I do assign my setup man and second best non-closer to both the setup and main MR roles. In older leagues my closer also covers the first setup and sometimes first MR spots. Always preferable to see my best two or three relievers getting 80 to 120 innings.

[satchel]

Originally Posted by sfeldkamp

...your best relievers are used when the game is on the line, no matter what inning that is, and your worst relievers pitch fewer innings throughout the year.

This is exactly what I like to do: bring in my best reliever first, unless it's in a mopup role. In the past, I've done it by assigning "Middle Relievers" but no other relief roles (of course, I've been limited to assigning four relievers, using that method).

Perhaps the method you suggest would work. I have found, in past versions, that the relief pitcher the number-one slot in any of the various roles (Middle Reliever, Setup, or Closer) doesn't get the most appearances. I've never figured out whether it's because of fatigue issues and other variables, or whether the game is using some logic that I don't understand.

[Kelric]

Originally Posted by satchel

I have found, in past versions, that the relief pitcher the number-one slot in any of the various roles (Middle Reliever, Setup, or Closer) doesn't get the most appearances. I've never figured out whether it's because of fatigue issues and other variables, or whether the game is using some logic that I don't understand.

It usually seems like the #2 and #3 MRs get more appearances than the #1 MR and #1 setup man. I don't know why either.

[StyxNCa]

Originally Posted by satchel

.... or whether the game is using some logic that I don't understand.

The game uses a lot of logic I don't understand.

[professor ape]

There has been an interesting conversation about reliever usage on another baseball site (rhymes with "Pill Games"). The question has been raised about resurrecting the usage of starters in a relief role between their starts. It was a common practice back in the '30s to use starters to pitch an inning or so between starts. Teams still do this in the playoffs in key spots (not just in game 7) so why is it such a bad idea during the regular season now?

I could see it working well if used properly, especially with a 5-man rotation. A pitcher starts and then three days later he is available just for that game. The team plans to have him do some warm up throwing in either the 6th or 7th inning depending on the game situation. If the opportunity is right to bring him into the game 20-40 minutes after he starts to loosen up, then he can come in with say a max pitch count of 25. If the situation isn't right to come in, then he finishes doing some tosses in the pen and gets ready for his next start.

Say that there is an appropriate opportunity to bring in the starter a third of the time. That means that you would have 20-30 relief appearances by your #1 & #2 pitchers with many of those in crucial points in the game. You get better pitchers in the games more often, you keep the rest of your bull pen better rested and the fans are happy because they see their favorite pitchers more often.

Tell me why this is a bad idea.

[Cryomaniac]

Originally Posted by professor ape

There has been an interesting conversation about reliever usage on another baseball site (rhymes with "Pill Games"). The question has been raised about resurrecting the usage of starters in a relief role between their starts. It was a common practice back in the '30s to use starters to pitch an inning or so between starts. Teams still do this in the playoffs in key spots (not just in game 7) so why is it such a bad idea during the regular season now?

I could see it working well if used properly, especially with a 5-man rotation. A pitcher starts and then three days later he is available just for that game. The team plans to have him do some warm up throwing in either the 6th or 7th inning depending on the game situation. If the opportunity is right to bring him into the game 20-40 minutes after he starts to loosen up, then he can come in with say a max pitch count of 25. If the situation isn't right to come in, then he finishes doing some tosses in the pen and gets ready for his next start.

Say that there is an appropriate opportunity to bring in the starter a third of the time. That means that you would have 20-30 relief appearances by your #1 & #2 pitchers with many of those in crucial points in the game. You get better pitchers in the games more often, you keep the rest of your bull pen better rested and the fans are happy because they see their favorite pitchers more often.

Tell me why this is a bad idea.

Peoplewould say it gives an unecessary risk of injury. I agree it would be cool. Does the AI in OOTP ever use starters in extra inning games if there are no relievers available? Also, does it ever do what you say in the playoffs?

[StyxNCa]

Originally Posted by Cryomaniac

People would say it gives an unecessary risk of injury. I agree it would be cool.

Yeah. It's funny how the more effort there is in protecting athletes from injury the more injuries there are. The NFL QB situation is a perfect example. Ever since they put dresses on QB's and did everything possible to keep QB's from getting hit there is rarely a QB that plays every game of a season.

[professor ape]

Originally Posted by Cryomaniac

Peoplewould say it gives an unecessary risk of injury. I agree it would be cool. Does the AI in OOTP ever use starters in extra inning games if there are no relievers available? Also, does it ever do what you say in the playoffs?

Which would risk injury more in the long run? Letting a starter pitch 110-130 pitches every five days or throwing 100-110 pitches every five days with 20-30 pitches in between?

Getting steadier, more consistent work tends to be better on a body. I do better when I row six miles three days a week than I would if I tried to do 15 miles once a week.

The issue here seems to be the change in conventional wisdom over the years. In the '30s a manager would probably have been slammed if there was a tight relief situation, the best starter was not used and the lead was blown. "How dare he not bring in Lefty Gomez to face Foxx??!!??"

Sure, a pitcher can get injured at any time. Does a manager get slammed when a pitcher leaves with a tight shoulder in the 3rd inning of one of their starts? I bet that this would result in less injuries overall. Of course, the first time that someone did get hurt, the world would stop spinning and the nay-sayers would pull out the "I told you so" statement. Going with the crowd is safe but usually doesn't get you ahead.

Again, I would only do this with a tightly defined role. Don't rush the starters' warm up, once he has been throwing for 30-40 minutes he is cut off, and limit him to 25-30 pitches.

[Cryomaniac]

Originally Posted by professor ape

Which would risk injury more in the long run? Letting a starter pitch 110-130 pitches every five days or throwing 100-110 pitches every five days with 20-30 pitches in between?

Getting steadier, more consistent work tends to be better on a body. I do better when I row six miles three days a week than I would if I tried to do 15 miles once a week.

The issue here seems to be the change in conventional wisdom over the years. In the '30s a manager would probably have been slammed if there was a tight relief situation, the best starter was not used and the lead was blown. "How dare he not bring in Lefty Gomez to face Foxx??!!??"

Sure, a pitcher can get injured at any time. Does a manager get slammed when a pitcher leaves with a tight shoulder in the 3rd inning of one of their starts? I bet that this would result in less injuries overall. Of course, the first time that someone did get hurt, the world would stop spinning and the nay-sayers would pull out the "I told you so" statement. Going with the crowd is safe but usually doesn't get you ahead.

Again, I would only do this with a tightly defined role. Don't rush the starters' warm up, once he has been throwing for 30-40 minutes he is cut off, and limit him to 25-30 pitches.

I definitely agree with you, pitcher usage is getting stupidly conservative.

[NCBeachBum]

AFAIK, all pitchers throw once in-between starts (and a few Mazzone-disciples still throw twice), so it seems that a starter could be used in relief on that day instead of just tossing a few meaningess pitches before the game without too much added risk. I know the guy would be throwing at 100% instead of at 80%, but othe than that it would still be in his normal routine.

[professor ape]

Originally Posted by NCBeachBum

AFAIK, all pitchers throw once in-between starts (and a few Mazzone-disciples still throw twice), so it seems that a starter could be used in relief on that day instead of just tossing a few meaningess pitches before the game without too much added risk. I know the guy would be throwing at 100% instead of at 80%, but othe than that it would still be in his normal routine.

Exactly. Also, it's not like it has to be set in stone that the pitcher be available to relieve between every start. If the situation called for the starter to throw 125-140 pitches in their last start, then the manager can decide that the pitcher is only going to do their tossing on the side before their next start.

[StyxNCa]

Originally Posted by sfeldkamp

If you are like me, you kind of hate the current bullpen usage in MLB and would like your team to use a more leveraged approach, where your best relievers are used when the game is on the line, no matter what inning that is, and your worst relievers pitch fewer innings throughout the year. I didn't see a setting in game setup for this, but I had a thought, I wonder what would happen if I didn't assign an pitchers any of the reliever roles? I took a chance and the early returns are better than I hoped. Take this game for instance.

Starter goes 7.2 innings, but has given up a run in the 8th to bring the opposition to within one with runners on 1st and 2nd. My manager (I sim) brings in Joakim Soria from the bullpen, who is mind you, not in the closer role and he finishes the game off for a 4 out save.

I've also seen a similar game where Soria came in in the 7th and part of the 8th when the opposition was threatening and then another pitcher finished the game off after we scored a few more runs.

Right now I do designate a mop-up reliever so that good quality relievers aren't used in this low-leverage situation.

It's been about a month of games, with me looking at every game log. Bullpen era rank has improved quite a few ranks (though I did replace one underperformer).

Has anyone else tried this?

Keep us posted on how this works out. If it works well I will do this for all the AI teams in my league so it will play more intelligently and hopefully provide me with better competition.

[bwd]

Originally Posted by sfeldkamp

Right now I do designate a mop-up reliever so that good quality relievers aren't used in this low-leverage situation.

For what it's worth, I just tried this with only my worst reliever set to the mop-up role (all else blank). Although my pen was almost fully rested manager went to the mop-up guy as the first reliever used in the 7th down 2-1. He got through the inning but then he left him in for the 8th where he promptly gave up 4 runs

[satchel]

Originally Posted by bwd

For what it's worth, I just tried this with only my worst reliever set to the mop-up role (all else blank). Although my pen was almost fully rested manager went to the mop-up guy as the first reliever used in the 7th down 2-1. He got through the inning but then he left him in for the 8th where he promptly gave up 4 runs

Thanks for trying this out, and reporting the results.

[bwd]

Originally Posted by satchel

Thanks for trying this out, and reporting the results.

Since taking out the last reliever it has worked almost shockingly well. I've simmed maybe 3 weeks and what I am seeing over and over is the AI go to better relievers in close games (winning or losing) and then worse relievers with a bigger lead.

However, this is a small sample size, and from a quick glance it looks like a lot of my games have been close early then the score gap widened. Not entirely sure yet how it will handle a game where say, one team goes up 6-0 but then the other team climbs back in it and makes it 6-5 later on.

[RchW]

Originally Posted by StyxNCa

Yeah. It's funny how the more effort there is in protecting athletes from injury the more injuries there are. The NFL QB situation is a perfect example. Ever since they put dresses on QB's and did everything possible to keep QB's from getting hit there is rarely a QB that plays every game of a season.

Wrong. It's a different paradigm now. Back in the "good old days" there was less science in the diagnosis of injury and there was more depth in terms of affordable replacements. That led to,

• Players playing through injuries that today they would be told to not to play with (see concussions).

• Minor injuries are addressed earlier and often lead to major surgery. See here

• In the past, Litsch would just have faded from the game, another sore arm casualty who was replaced by the next pitcher in line. He may still fade but it will be with a good arm.

• Young players are routinely told to sit for extended time periods in order to protect the investment. Check any minor league roster.

[StyxNCa]

Originally Posted by RchW

Wrong. It's a different paradigm now. Back in the "good old days" there was less science in the diagnosis of injury and there was more depth in terms of affordable replacements. That led to,

• Players playing through injuries that today they would be told to not to play with (see concussions).

• Minor injuries are addressed earlier and often lead to major surgery. See here

• In the past, Litsch would just have faded from the game, another sore arm casualty who was replaced by the next pitcher in line. He may still fade but it will be with a good arm.

• Young players are routinely told to sit for extended time periods in order to protect the investment. Check any minor league roster.

Ah, these modern athletes are such babies. Oops, stubbed my toe on a table, I can't play for a month. Oops, gotta blister. That's another month of rest. And to think how many times I played football with severely sprained ankles. Oh well.

Your first comment about players playing through injuries that players today don't kind of shows how prissy today's athletes are.

[conception]

Originally Posted by RchW

Wrong. It's a different paradigm now. Back in the "good old days" there was less science in the diagnosis of injury and there was more depth in terms of affordable replacements. That led to,

• Players playing through injuries that today they would be told to not to play with (see concussions).

• Minor injuries are addressed earlier and often lead to major surgery. See here

• In the past, Litsch would just have faded from the game, another sore arm casualty who was replaced by the next pitcher in line. He may still fade but it will be with a good arm.

• Young players are routinely told to sit for extended time periods in order to protect the investment. Check any minor league roster.

I think part of the problem is that athletes are constantly having surgery for conditions that are not going to severely impact their career. It may cause discomfort, but almost every normal person experiences discomfort and doesn't get surgery for every ailment that they have. Players these days spend ridiculous amounts of time recovering from surgery that they didn't always need to have. And then they don't recover from surgery properly, or something goes wrong, and instead of knee discomfort they have a lot more serious problems.

You don't see the guys like Mickey Mantle anymore. Back in the day guys could be perenially hurt but still play through things because it was the only way they could play. Today, Mickey Mantle would be having surgery every offseason and who knows if he would have ever actually been on the field.

[jarmenia]

Originally Posted by StyxNCa

Your first comment about players playing through injuries that players today don't kind of shows how prissy today's athletes are.

Or how much money a career ending injury caused by playing through a minor injury would cost the team owner.