*Author’s Note: I wrote this the day after Aroldis Chapman
was brought in to start the 9th inning of a game in which the Yankees led by 3 runs. This was the 4th time he’s been used when the
Yankees have been leading by 3 runs or more, from a total of 8 appearances. Later that night, whether or not he was
available to pitch in that game was unknown – Joe Girardi needed to “ask him”.
I have no idea why a manager would bring his best relief
pitcher into a game with a 3 run or more lead, in the 9th inning. I’m certainly not qualified enough as an
amateur psychologist to enter Joe Girardi’s mind, and I don’t’ have access to
him to ask what I think is a simple question.
And I’m certainly not going to wait for the “don’t upset the YES network
apple cart” pushers like Jack Curry, Meredith Marakovits, and Michael Kay to ask,
because they won’t.
So I’ll ask you: Why
would a pitcher who earns $17 million average annually be used in what is
essentially mop up duty, when any other pitcher could do the same job? Which, if the better pitcher is used, would
presumably make the better pitcher less available in situations when a better
pitcher is needed. Just as one was on
April 15th, when Joe Girardi labeled Chapman as “unavailable” due to having been
used three straight days (one of those days was an 8-4 Yankee win, rub temples)
when we held our breath as Tyler Clippard held on for dear life in a 3-2 Yankee
win.
I don’t know the answer.
I’d like to think we’re beyond managing to the stat of the “save”, which
has long been known to be a useless statistic at best, misleading at worst. You know, the “it’s a save situation, so get
your closer in there all other logic be dammed” managing of the 90’s and early
00’s.
And I understand that MLB managers have an instinct of
self-preservation as we all do. It’s
much easier to deal with the criticisms that come with failure when you use
your closer in the 9th inning, all other circumstances be
dammed. It certainly is easier to
explain in the post-game press conferences and to your bosses in the off
season. Managers will leave a closer in
the pen in a tie game in the 7th, but bring him in during the 9th with a 3 run
lead because they’ll take no heat for doing so.
So win today, but only if it’s the 9th inning is the logic,
if I’m understanding correctly…?
Misguided logic aside, let's consider the realities. Using numbers from the late 90’s and early 00’s…
In games where a team had a 3 run lead entering the 9th
inning, when the best relievers were used – Mariano Rivera, John Wetteland,
Trevor Hoffman, Billy Wagner, John Smoltz, Rob Nen, Troy Percival, among a few
others – the leading team went on to win 97% of those games.
When leading by 3 runs entering the 9th inning
when the worst relievers in baseball
were used - Scott Service, Jerry Spradlin, Matt Anderson, Kerry Lightenberg,
Guillermo Mota, Mike Matthews, Bryan Ward, among others– the leading team went
on to win 96% of those games.
The league average was within hundredths of a point of
97%. The same as when the best closers in
baseball were used.
If you do the math, that’s .2 wins over 162 games. If the Yankees use Aroldis Chapman with a 3
run lead in the 9th inning every time, they will win POINT TWO more games
during a full season than if they used
the worst pitcher in baseball.
Bottom line: If you
have a 3 run lead in the 9th, it does not matter who is pitching. You are going to win the game 97% of the
time, regardless.
However…
When teams were leading by 2 runs entering the 9th
inning, they won 95% of the time using the best relievers, 91% of the time with
all other pitchers. (That’s twice the
advantage for the mathematically disinclined among us, myself included.)
When teams hold a 1 run lead entering the 9th
inning, they won 85% of the time using their best relievers, only 79% of the
time when other pitchers were used.
That’s essentially triple the advantage when using the best of the best.
If you do the math, for every win you get using Chapman with
a 3 run lead, you get 2 wins with a 2 run lead, and 3 wins with a 1 run lead.
In other words, as irrelevant as who is pitching with a 3
run lead is, it is extremely relevant who is pitching for you in a 1 or 2 run
game.
Furthermore…
Using your best reliever earlier in the game is an enormous
advantage as well. Just using one
example, with a 1 run lead in the 8th inning, the Aroldis Chapmans
of the world will win you the game 82% of the time. Joe reliever only74% of the time.
We’re just doing math kids:
Using your best reliever with a lead of 3 runs or more is not only
pointless for that particular game but also limits your ability to use him when
he can do what he’s being paid to do: have
an impact on the close games. You have to
use him when he can have the impact that he’s capable of having.
The term “wasting bullets” comes to mind. And with today’s emphasis on pitch counts and
limitations on pitchers’ overall usage it’s damaging to your team’s chances to
not have your best players available when you need them.
When random occurrences such as injuries render your best players
unavailable, that’s one thing. But when one of your best players isn’t available
because of manager’s misuse, then you have an issue that needs to be corrected.
Questions? I’m here.
But because these arise whenver this discussion comes up:
1. If your closer hasn't pitched recently and needs work, then you bring him in earlier in the game when he can affect the outcome. You don't wait until the 9th inning when the outcome may already be decided.
2. It's unlikely they'll get burned out. Evidence suggests they can handle a greater workload than they are given.
Reference: For much more detailed explanations and
background on the above check out “The Book” by Tom Tango. He and his colleagues did all the hard work, I’m just
passing it along.
