Relief Pitching, 538 way

[Otto von Ballpark]

 

Yes. There is plenty of room for different stats.

 

Imagine you're in a broadcast booth. Now try to explain what WPA means because saying the number 2.1 doesn't mean squat to the audience. Was that in 31 appearances or 65 appearances? How many innings pitched? What is the player's typical role out of the bullpen, fifth or eighth inning? The number, on its own, means virtually nothing. It's super-useful for a deeper analysis and comparison of performance but not good for on-the-fly talking.

 

Whereas counting stats have their use in the quick-and-dirty analysis that often happens on live radio/television. When a guy is pitching to a batter, the announcer doesn't have time to spend 90 seconds explaining to the audience all the situations that led to that 2.1 WPA.

 

But saying "Tonkin has 21 Goose Eggs and 4 Broken Eggs" gives you lots of information in just ten words.

 

Back to this post -- what is the announcer's specific objective here, in your example?

 

Is he/she trying to communicate that the player has been reasonably effective?  We have stats to do that, all kinds of them, without resorting to Goose Eggs and Broken Eggs.  ERA, RA9, K/9 if we want to get into peripherals.  Opponent's average or OPS, especially for relievers and platoon matchups.  For a reliever coming in with men on base, I'd like to hear something specific about inherited runners scored percentage, compared to league average.

 

Is he/she trying to communicate that the player has been put in a trusted role?  We have leverage index specifically, and I think most fans would understand even a generalized statement like "the Twins have brought him into the highest leverage situations, on average" or "they have brought him in to increasingly higher leverage situations this season".  Goose Eggs would still need some context to have any meaning here -- 21 Goose Eggs in a full season is a lot different than 21 in a half season.

 

I just don't know what introducing Goose Eggs and Broken Eggs really accomplishes.

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

I didn't need to know that Tonkin had 6 goose egg opportunities, in 65 total appearances, to know that he was a low-leverage reliever last year.  I could just look at his average game-entering leverage index of 0.80.

 

The goose egg sounds more useful than the save stat, no doubt. But the save stat isn't very useful at all.  I think the bar should be set higher for its potential replacement.

Well, maybe, but we already have those stats on FanGraphs. The problem I see is that we're not normal baseball fans. Getting people to accept an arbitrary stat that has no real world definition will be a struggle.

 

I mean, we can't get announcers to stop talking about batting average and RBI.

 

And that's why I like the Goose Egg stat. It's a neatly bundled stat that is close enough to the save statistic to not be rejected out of hand.

[Otto von Ballpark]

 

Well, maybe, but we already have those stats on FanGraphs. The problem I see is that we're not normal baseball fans. Getting people to accept an arbitrary stat that has no real world definition will be a struggle.

 

I mean, we can't get announcers to stop talking about batting average and RBI.

 

And that's why I like the Goose Egg stat. It's a neatly bundled stat that is close enough to the save statistic to not be rejected out of hand.

 

I guess Goose Eggs is not really a step forward enough that I care about.  How much are announcers fixated on saves?  I mean, they mention them when the closer comes in and when the game ends, they are a basic accounting in box scores next to wins and losses.  I don't really mind them in that context, they help tell the story of the game.

 

But it's not like announcers are quoting save stats for setup men and we're all left scratching our heads. They use different stats for them, like ERA, K/9, opponent average, platoon stats. For that matter, I'd guess announcers today regularly use those stats to describe closers too, especially when relevant (if a guy has notably high or low K rate, or platoon splits on a particular matchup, etc.)

 

Even though the save stat is still around, I don't get the impression that a lot of people are abusing it that much anymore.  We're already seeing a shift away from it mattering too much on the field (Buck Showalter's playoff game notwithstanding!).  Trying to shift the mention of saves to Goose Eggs seems like a lot of work for little benefit.

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

WPA is a counting stat      "A" stands for "added", which is the epitome of counting.

WPA is a rate stat because it can go backwards and/or into the negative.

 

A counting stat cannot do either of those things.

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

I guess Goose Eggs is not really a step forward enough that I care about.  How much are announcers fixated on saves?  I mean, they mention them when the closer comes in and when the game ends, they are a basic accounting in box scores next to wins and losses.  I don't really mind them in that context, they help tell the story of the game.

 

But it's not like announcers are quoting save stats for setup men and we're all left scratching our heads. They use different stats for them, like ERA, K/9, opponent average, platoon stats. For that matter, I'd guess announcers today regularly use those stats to describe closers too, especially when relevant (if a guy has notably high or low K rate, or platoon splits on a particular matchup, etc.)

 

Even though the save stat is still around, I don't get the impression that a lot of people are abusing it that much anymore.  We're already seeing a shift away from it mattering too much on the field (Buck Showalter's playoff game notwithstanding!).  Trying to shift the mention of saves to Goose Eggs seems like a lot of work for little benefit.

Possibly. Maybe I just have an irrational hatred of the save statistic because, not only is is mostly worthless, but somehow it changed the game of baseball for the worse.

 

I really, really hate the save statistic. In the history of the game, has a more trivial stat actually impacted how managers and players play the game?

 

The save stat is a shining example of the tail wagging the dog.

[drjim]

Possibly. Maybe I just have an irrational hatred of the save statistic because, not only is is mostly worthless, but somehow it changed the game of baseball for the worse.

 

I really, really hate the save statistic. In the history of the game, has a more trivial stat actually impacted how managers and players play the game?

 

The save stat is a shining example of the tail wagging the dog.

Don't you sense that this battle is already over on the field? It was a good run though.

 

There are still closers, but only because relievers are generally assigned pretty solid roles. And these roles are assigned for reasons beyond chasing statistics.

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

Don't you sense that this battle is already over on the field? It was a good run though.

Is it, though? If a team is up by three runs in the ninth, I'll be surprised if the "closer" comes out less than 80% of the time unless there are usage concerns.

[drjim]

Is it, though? If a team is up by three runs in the ninth, I'll be surprised if the "closer" comes out less than 80% of the time unless there are usage concerns.

Yes, I expect it, but not because of the save stat.

[old nurse]

The goose egg is as relevant to how good a relief pitcher as wins are to a starting pitcher.  The better the team's starting pitching, the better the reliever will look. Enough offense to create a lead gets the reliever points, just bad enough offense at the time to be down a run gets you nothing.

[Brock Beauchamp]

Yes, I expect it, but not because of the save stat.

That's absolutely because of the save stat. What else would it be? Why do managers call out their closer with a three run lead but not a four run lead? Why is it almost always three outs? Why is it always the ninth inning?

 

The save stat (and Tony LaRussa) created the modern closer. I don't see how that's even in dispute here. Baseball has been chasing a stat for 30 years.

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

The goose egg is as relevant to how good a relief pitcher as wins are to a starting pitcher.

If that was true, the graph compared to WPA wouldn't look like this:

 

[drjim]

That's absolutely because of the save stat. What else would it be? Why do managers call out their closer with a three run lead but not a four run lead? Why is it almost always three outs? Why is it always the ninth inning?

 

The save stat (and Tony LaRussa) created the modern closer. I don't see how that's even in dispute here. Baseball has been chasing a stat for 30 years.

The save stat created that role for sure, but my argument is teams are moving away from it. For example, there is really no difference between 3 and 4 anymore.

 

There are still relatively locked in roles, but that is not because of the save stat.

[Brock Beauchamp]

The save stat created that role for sure, but my argument is teams are moving away from it. For example, there is really no difference between 3 and 4 anymore.

 

There are still relatively locked in roles, but that is not because of the save stat.

There's a difference between three and four. I can't remember the last time I saw a closer enter the ninth with a four run lead unless it was a "this guy hasn't pitched in a week and needs some reps" situation. Yet that same pitcher comes out with a three run lead almost like clockwork.

[Otto von Ballpark]

There's a difference between three and four. I can't remember the last time I saw a closer enter the ninth with a four run lead unless it was a "this guy hasn't pitched in a week and needs some reps" situation. Yet that same pitcher comes out with a three run lead almost like clockwork.

Cody Allen pitched the 9th with a 4 run lead vs. the Twins just yesterday.

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

Cody Allen pitched the 9th with a 4 run lead vs. the Twins just yesterday.

Terry Francona is a special case. He seems to be taking the lead in changing how bullpens are managed and has become something of an anti-LaRussa.

[Willihammer]

The article addresses this question-

 

 

"The typical modern closer is really just a ninth-inning specialist"