ImageImageImageImageImage

Modern bullpen needs change

Moderator: JaysRule15

User avatar
Kapono
Bench Warmer
Posts: 1,292
And1: 299
Joined: Apr 25, 2008
       

Modern bullpen needs change 

Post#1 » by Kapono » Tue Apr 17, 2012 9:05 pm

Wow fantastic article from SI.com about bullpen injuries. Makes me happy AA did not sign a big name closer. Must read for all baseball fans. Here are some excerpts:

No one wants to admit it, but the modern bullpen is a failure and the modern conventional wisdom of training pitchers is a failure. The modern specialized bullpen does no better job protecting leads than the pitching usage that preceded it. And though closers, like pitchers of all types, work less often, they break down more often. What industry would accept these failure rates -- the way baseball does?
• Sixty-six percent of 2011 Opening Day closers (20 of 30) are no longer closing for the same team 12 months later, with seven of them hurt.
• Fifty percent of all starting pitchers will go on the DL every year, as well as 34 percent of all relievers, according to research by Stan Conte, director of medical services for the Los Angeles Dodgers. That bears repeating: half of all starting pitchers will break down this year. ("When I did the research," Conte said, "I was so surprised I figured I must have done the math wrong.")
• Injuries last year cost clubs $487 million -- or about $16 million per team. The bill since 2008 for players who can't play is $1.9 billion.
Yet baseball keeps doing things the same way. It is addicted to the "theater" of having a specialized closer and the "theory" that an arm has only so many pitches in it -- and that everybody's arm will be treated exactly the same way. And when the casualties keep piling up, baseball keeps going about it the same way. The sport is so flush with money even wasting half a billion dollars a year doesn't set off any alarms.


Wilson's injury was not a surprise given his history, usage and pitching style. The Giants rode him hard to a world championship in 2010. He made 80 appearances, including the postseason, and was asked 19 times to get more than three outs. He racked up 54 saves and 85 1/3 innings. The next season he wasn't the same, and the red flag to people like Conte was that he was shut down at the end of the season with elbow pain for purposes of "rest."
Another red flag: Wilson wasn't throwing as hard. The guy who threw 97 in 2009 was down to 94 last year. A loss in peak velocity -- a loss of three or four miles per hour is very significant -- is a dead giveaway that something is wrong.
But was Wilson really worked that hard in 2010? It depends on your perspective. For a modern closer, and for the way Wilson was trained, yes. Wilson never worked more than 68 games before or since. The Giants pushed the usual conveniences of the modern closer because they played so many close games and because they had a chance to win the franchise's first championship since it relocated to San Francisco.
But when you look at how closers were handled 20 or 30 years ago, no, Wilson was not overused. What seems to make no sense is that closers are asked to pitch less but they break down more often. Here's an example: compare four-year runs at ages 26-29 for two famously bearded closers: Wilson and Jeff Reardon of the Montreal Expos:



The role is devolving, not evolving. The past two seasons mark the first time since the save statistic became official in 1969 that nobody saved 25 games with 81 innings in back-to-back full seasons. Bailey, with the 2009 Athletics, is the only closer to do so in the past four years.
Managers are motivated by the save statistic, throwing three-out save chances to their closer like bones to a dog. The game universally has embraced this idea that a closer can't come in to a tie game on the road -- better to lose the game with a lesser pitcher than run your closer out there without a save in hand.
What makes this groupthink so crazy is that the system isn't working. Closers are breaking down or losing effectiveness faster than you can say Joel Zumaya. (Quick, look around baseball: show me the high velocity, high energy closer with the obligatory, goofy closer-hair starter kit who has a long career. The job has a bit of planned obsolescence to it.)
Clubs can find closers; it's keeping them in the job that is the tough part. Over the previous five seasons, 53 closers saved 25 games at least once. Thirty-three of them, or 62 percent, no longer are closing. Only five pitchers saved 25 games three times in the past five years and are still closing: Jose Valverde, Mariano Rivera, Jonathan Papelbon, Heath Bell and Joe Nathan (with the latter two off to shaky starts). Mostly, closers just come and go, or they break down and virtually disappear (Zumaya, B.J. Ryan, David Aardsma, Brandon Lyon, Kerry Wood, Bobby Jenks, etc.).




Is anybody watching the Tampa Bay Rays? They don't have the money to waste nor do they waste a valuable young starter in a closing role. The team with the fourth best record in baseball since 2008 has done just fine with five different pitchers leading the team in saves over those five years: Troy Percival, J.P. Howell, Rafael Soriano, Farnsworth and Fernando Rodney. Total cost: $15.8 million. And all of them, to varying degrees, have broken down.
Imagine if every team in the NFL used the same 3-4 defense. That's essentially what is happening in baseball. Everybody runs their bullpen and their pitch count policies the same way. Everybody. Justin Verlander on Monday night became the first pitcher to throw 120 pitches, hitting 133 and causing manager Jim Leyland to crack on the mound that he was going to get him fired.
And yet the universally accepted system is a failure when it comes to reducing the rate of injuries. What can change it? A maverick organization. (The Rangers and Giants are loosening pitch count restrictions in the minors, but the evidence is not yet very apparent in the majors.) A maverick manager. (Why won't somebody use a closer -- say Sean Marshall or Aroldis Chapman in Cincinnati -- in the manner of a 1980s closer such as Jeff Reardon? And my personal idea: give each starting pitcher a 10-day vacation during the season. Recovery, both mental and physical, is an undervalued asset.) Stem cell treatments. (Baseball better be bracing for a whole new series of ethical questions as science blurs the line between performance enhancing and performance enabling.)
Who knows what the future holds? Not even Tony LaRussa, the father of the modern bullpen, likely could have envisioned a pitcher limited to about 60 innings being worth more than $12 million while representing a breakdown waiting to happen. But this much is certain: the injury rate will not be reduced if teams continue to treat pitchers the same way they do now.



Read more: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2012/w ... z1sKlmug00
Alex Anthopoulos - styling on Major League Baseball since 2009
b0na f1de
Sixth Man
Posts: 1,758
And1: 20
Joined: Aug 14, 2003
Location: second base

Re: Modern bullpen needs change 

Post#2 » by b0na f1de » Tue Apr 17, 2012 10:48 pm

Thanks. The "you get what you pay for" people can be pretty funny.

heath bell... lmao.
Hamyltowne
Banned User
Posts: 3,065
And1: 53
Joined: Jan 05, 2012
Location: The kandy-kolored tangerine-flake streamline baby

Re: Modern bullpen needs change 

Post#3 » by Hamyltowne » Tue Apr 17, 2012 10:50 pm

A fantastic article. Good find!

Tom Verducci is always welcome.
User avatar
LLJ
RealGM
Posts: 53,790
And1: 18,042
Joined: Jul 10, 2003
Location: Unfixed

Re: Modern bullpen needs change 

Post#4 » by LLJ » Tue Apr 17, 2012 10:52 pm

Yeah, this was a good one. It is kind of strange that closers and relievers seem to have more injuries than starting pitchers. I guess this is the theory behind McGowan NOT going to the bullpen.

Another red flag: Wilson wasn't throwing as hard. The guy who threw 97 in 2009 was down to 94 last year. A loss in peak velocity -- a loss of three or four miles per hour is very significant -- is a dead giveaway that something is wrong


Better give Cecil another medical go-over.
Raptor_Guy
General Manager
Posts: 8,737
And1: 3,190
Joined: Feb 20, 2005
Location: Toronto
       

Re: Modern bullpen needs change 

Post#5 » by Raptor_Guy » Tue Apr 17, 2012 10:54 pm

Great article, I've always said the save statistic is stupid. Outs are outs. I don't get why if Player A and Player B both have the same ERA and WHIP, but Player B is a closer, that means Play B gets paid 3 times as much as Player A.
User avatar
Attonitus
Senior
Posts: 621
And1: 20
Joined: Jun 23, 2008
     

Re: Modern bullpen needs change 

Post#6 » by Attonitus » Tue Apr 17, 2012 11:08 pm

Raptor_Guy wrote:Great article, I've always said the save statistic is stupid. Outs are outs. I don't get why if Player A and Player B both have the same ERA and WHIP, but Player B is a closer, that means Play B gets paid 3 times as much as Player A.


It's the same reason Player A who hits 30 HR's but bats .250 with a ton of strikeouts gets more money than player B that bats .300 with a high OBP but only has 10 HR's. Despite the emergence of Sabermetrics certain numbers like HR, RBI, ERA, etc. still must hold alot of sway, how else is Adam Dunn still in the majors?
User avatar
SharoneWright
RealGM
Posts: 28,352
And1: 13,023
Joined: Aug 03, 2006
Location: A pig in a cage on antibiotics
     

Re: Modern bullpen needs change 

Post#7 » by SharoneWright » Wed Apr 18, 2012 12:24 am

Its true. I totally believe the closer role is over-rated/over-paid. At the same time, I really think we have good-great one in Santos.

We need to take advantage of the prevailing wisdom and convince the Giants to trade with us for Francisco Cordero. If we get value back, shed the 5ish million, and a player who is not a long-term piece, its a no-brainer. Come on Giants! Look at those career numbers! He's seen those high-pressure situations before! Plus,, he's an NL-guy!!
Is anybody here a marine biologist?
User avatar
Kurtz
RealGM
Posts: 15,568
And1: 16,489
Joined: Aug 07, 2002
Location: Toronto

Re: Modern bullpen needs change 

Post#8 » by Kurtz » Wed Apr 18, 2012 12:32 am

LLJ wrote:Yeah, this was a good one. It is kind of strange that closers and relievers seem to have more injuries than starting pitchers. I guess this is the theory behind McGowan NOT going to the bullpen.




One of us has read the article wrong, because what I saw in it was this:

"Fifty percent of all starting pitchers will go on the DL every year, as well as 34 percent of all relievers"


Anyway, the article doesn't seem to make any sense. The author is advocating doing away with pitch-counts entirely, for both starters and closers. That seems to be his lone argument. He's not suggesting that closers are overvalued, but rather than they are babied and should be used far more often...even as he uses Wilson as his example!

And bringing up Wood as a closer who failed due to injuries? Well, maybe, but not before Wood the cy-young calibre starter failed due to injuries.

But we've seen countless examples in the past where high pitch counts have ruined pitchers...so what the hell is he talking about??
Image
Modern_epic
Lead Assistant
Posts: 5,458
And1: 4
Joined: Jul 03, 2003

Re: Modern bullpen needs change 

Post#9 » by Modern_epic » Wed Apr 18, 2012 12:37 am

Attonitus wrote:
Raptor_Guy wrote:Great article, I've always said the save statistic is stupid. Outs are outs. I don't get why if Player A and Player B both have the same ERA and WHIP, but Player B is a closer, that means Play B gets paid 3 times as much as Player A.


It's the same reason Player A who hits 30 HR's but bats .250 with a ton of strikeouts gets more money than player B that bats .300 with a high OBP but only has 10 HR's. Despite the emergence of Sabermetrics certain numbers like HR, RBI, ERA, etc. still must hold alot of sway, how else is Adam Dunn still in the majors?


Adam Dunn is a poor example here: as long as he's not playing OF sabermetrics likes him just as much - if not more - than old school baseball stats. Despite being incredibly slow, he hits doubles, and until recently he walked around twice the league average.
User avatar
LLJ
RealGM
Posts: 53,790
And1: 18,042
Joined: Jul 10, 2003
Location: Unfixed

Re: Modern bullpen needs change 

Post#10 » by LLJ » Wed Apr 18, 2012 12:41 am

I read that too, Kurtz. But he seems to place a huge emphasis on closers being overpaid and breaking down far too often. The tone of the article leans in the direction, as you said, of favouring using relief pitchers MORE often.

So yes, it is a bit of a mixed message by throwing that stat in there, since starting pitchers' arms naturally are used more.

And though closers, like pitchers of all types, work less often, they break down more often. What industry would accept these failure rates -- the way baseball does?


So what is he saying here? They break down more often than...who?
User avatar
Kurtz
RealGM
Posts: 15,568
And1: 16,489
Joined: Aug 07, 2002
Location: Toronto

Re: Modern bullpen needs change 

Post#11 » by Kurtz » Wed Apr 18, 2012 1:21 am

LLJ wrote:
So what is he saying here? They break down more often than...who?


Good point. The guy just contradicted his own stats. As he did by talking about Wilson being injured and losing his stuff a year after pitching way more innings than he ever had...but then stating that the innings count had nothing to do with it. And not offering an explanation of what did...


This is just a terribly written article. Why are people praising it?
Image
flatjacket1
Analyst
Posts: 3,237
And1: 66
Joined: Oct 27, 2009

Re: Modern bullpen needs change 

Post#12 » by flatjacket1 » Wed Apr 18, 2012 1:34 am

The message is good (paying 50M+ dollars for a "closer" that likely will spend most of his time on the DL isn't the best move but the article isn't written that well (I see what you guys are saying).

I think the most efficient way to find a "closer" is to just to use the Joel Carreno's of the world through their renewable and arbitration years, and use the money elsewhere. Starters are a risk that you have to take, but closers are an option. A well managed team shouldn't have an overpaid closer, its just a symbolic position if anything.

That's my opinion anyways.
Avp115 wrote:Bautista>>Mike Trout and Kendrick
User avatar
LLJ
RealGM
Posts: 53,790
And1: 18,042
Joined: Jul 10, 2003
Location: Unfixed

Re: Modern bullpen needs change 

Post#13 » by LLJ » Wed Apr 18, 2012 1:38 am

Yeah; I like the intention of criticizing the use of the current bullpen system, but now that we've picked at the article a bit, yeah, I'll take it back also on how it was written.
User avatar
Schad
Retired Mod
Retired Mod
Posts: 58,449
And1: 17,975
Joined: Feb 08, 2006
Location: The Goat Rodeo
     

Re: Modern bullpen needs change 

Post#14 » by Schad » Wed Apr 18, 2012 2:02 am

Kurtz wrote:One of us has read the article wrong, because what I saw in it was this:

"Fifty percent of all starting pitchers will go on the DL every year, as well as 34 percent of all relievers"


On a per-inning basis, that would be more, I'd imagine. Using Tampa's numbers of a season ago (just because they have a fairly simple breakdown of starters/relievers and I cannot be arsed to actually go through the splits), their starters threw around 1050 out of 1449 innings...a shade below three-quarters. Probably higher than most teams, but you still end up with a higher rate of injuries among relievers.

And really, it comes down to the fact that -- while pitching in general is totally unnatural -- the workload placed on relievers is even worse. You're throwing 10-15 max-effort pitches four or five times a week in some cases, plus warmups, frequently warming up for games in which you don't appear (sometimes multiple times in the same game) and that lack of recovery time is bad for the tender bits of the arm, and it's bad for the maintenance of one's mechanics.

Mentioned it before, but I'd be interested to see the results if a team decided to rely on most or all of their relievers to produce more multi-inning appearances, and allow them more rest in between. Certainly doesn't work for all of them (I seem to remember a certain someone who put up good numbers if they pitched an inning, but went to pieces if brought out for a second), but it's a hell of a lot less taxing than repeat performances while trying to squeeze every bit of velocity out of one's arm.
Image
**** your asterisk.
User avatar
BigLeagueChew
RealGM
Posts: 10,041
And1: 4,088
Joined: May 26, 2011
Location: Catcher
     

Re: Modern bullpen needs change 

Post#15 » by BigLeagueChew » Wed Apr 18, 2012 2:52 am

Good article.

The motion of throwing a baseball isn't natural for your shoulder or elbow so I'm never surprised with an arm injury weather it's a starter or bullpen pitcher. Usually ball players don't learn how to treat their arm properly until that first injury.

Starters build arm strength by throwing near 100 pitches every 5 days, leaving plenty of rest in between. Bullpen guys throw maximum effort, sometimes 3 or 4 times a week, with little recovery time.

There have been studies on lactic acid build up in muscles that relate to arm injuries. My club team growing up years ago, our pitchers would have to jog for 15 minutes straight to get rid of this lactic acid buildup. I wonder if major league pitchers do this? i know most pitchers always have a big ice bag on there arm however if they don't get rid of this lactic acid build up the repair from icing the arm won't do very much.

As far as bullpen is concerned, I'm of the belief that you need a closer on every team but shouldn't spend a high amount of salary on the player. It would suck being a bullpen pitcher and not having some idea from the manager when you're going in the game.
Hamyltowne
Banned User
Posts: 3,065
And1: 53
Joined: Jan 05, 2012
Location: The kandy-kolored tangerine-flake streamline baby

Re: Modern bullpen needs change 

Post#16 » by Hamyltowne » Wed Apr 18, 2012 6:55 am

Attonitus wrote:It's the same reason Player A who hits 30 HR's but bats .250 with a ton of strikeouts gets more money than player B that bats .300 with a high OBP but only has 10 HR's. Despite the emergence of Sabermetrics certain numbers like HR, RBI, ERA, etc. still must hold alot of sway, how else is Adam Dunn still in the majors?

An absolutely ridiculous question. The answer is his career OPS, before 2011, was over .900 with a .380 OBP

What are you, new?
tecumseh18
RealGM
Posts: 18,941
And1: 11,190
Joined: Feb 20, 2006
Location: Big green house
 

Re: Modern bullpen needs change 

Post#17 » by tecumseh18 » Wed Apr 18, 2012 2:35 pm

I like that Jeff Reardon is used as an example of a horse, but all Expos fans can remember is that the one time the team really, really needed him, he was hurt. One of two watershed points in Expo history (the 1994 strike being the other).

Anyway, as mentioned, the article is a bit of a hodgepodge of interesting but not really connected bits of information. I guess the point is, don't pay too much for FA pitchers. But AA already appears to know that.
User avatar
satyr9
Assistant Coach
Posts: 3,892
And1: 563
Joined: Aug 09, 2006
     

Re: Modern bullpen needs change 

Post#18 » by satyr9 » Wed Apr 18, 2012 3:07 pm

There's another, older, piece on the topic of closers that should go in this thread:

http://www.grantland.com/blog/the-trian ... erous-stat

It's not about injury related stuff and pitchers, but based on where a lot of this discussion has gone should be included IMO.

Also, to the injury part, I think you'll see in the next couple years a new focus on a discussion about mechanics for all the pitching prospects. My guess is TB is already focused on that and is in part why they've found durable young starters and based on how often AA's picks were labelled as guys with smooth effortless deliveries I'm hoping he's ahead of the curve on that front as well. I certainly don't have the expertise to evaluate other than some obvious warning signs, but I think we're all going to get an education in this as the cost of arm destruction is totally insane.
User avatar
Deadpool_X
Sixth Man
Posts: 1,931
And1: 125
Joined: May 24, 2006
Location: Toronto

Re: Modern bullpen needs change 

Post#19 » by Deadpool_X » Wed Apr 18, 2012 7:00 pm

Not sure if this has been put to rest yet, but closers will be around forever. Should they be paid as much as some of them are? no, probably not, but they are generally the pitchers out there with the best stuff. Teams are always going to want to have them around for the 9th inning.
Image
User avatar
Kurtz
RealGM
Posts: 15,568
And1: 16,489
Joined: Aug 07, 2002
Location: Toronto

Re: Modern bullpen needs change 

Post#20 » by Kurtz » Wed Apr 18, 2012 9:53 pm

Schadenfreude wrote:
Kurtz wrote:One of us has read the article wrong, because what I saw in it was this:

"Fifty percent of all starting pitchers will go on the DL every year, as well as 34 percent of all relievers"


On a per-inning basis, that would be more, I'd imagine. Using Tampa's numbers of a season ago (just because they have a fairly simple breakdown of starters/relievers and I cannot be arsed to actually go through the splits), their starters threw around 1050 out of 1449 innings...a shade below three-quarters. Probably higher than most teams, but you still end up with a higher rate of injuries among relievers.

And really, it comes down to the fact that -- while pitching in general is totally unnatural -- the workload placed on relievers is even worse. You're throwing 10-15 max-effort pitches four or five times a week in some cases, plus warmups, frequently warming up for games in which you don't appear (sometimes multiple times in the same game) and that lack of recovery time is bad for the tender bits of the arm, and it's bad for the maintenance of one's mechanics.

Mentioned it before, but I'd be interested to see the results if a team decided to rely on most or all of their relievers to produce more multi-inning appearances, and allow them more rest in between. Certainly doesn't work for all of them (I seem to remember a certain someone who put up good numbers if they pitched an inning, but went to pieces if brought out for a second), but it's a hell of a lot less taxing than repeat performances while trying to squeeze every bit of velocity out of one's arm.


I think that you've presented a much more cohesive series of thoughts than the original article did.

It's only redeeming quality was that 50%/34% stat - although that's inconclusive as well. There's a big difference between a pitcher going on DL for 15 and 60 days. First one is usually a result of a freak occurence, where as the latter is often due to lingering issues.
Image

Return to Toronto Blue Jays