I've forgotten the goal for teams playing MLB games

[Otto von Ballpark]

Given accepted bullpen structure these days, it is defensible to test Robertson in that spot. Gardy will probably think twice before using Duensing so early in the future, though.

 

I would love to start seeing Perkins in multi-inning saves, though. The guy has a starter's pedigree and could really be an elite reliever if he could pull that off. And it would be a big help on a team with a lot of shakiness and inexperience elsewhere on the pitching staff.

[Mr. Brooks]

Couple points: 1) In yesterday's game, Perkins could have been used in pretty much any way suggested by posters above. He could have started the 8th (probably the best option, IMO) and pitched 2 innings if necessary; or been brought in at pretty much any point after the 1st two hitters reached in the 8th. There would have been time to get him warmed up. 2) But, in general, the "use your best reliever in the highest leverage situation" meme isn't nearly as easy as many seem to think. You can't know ahead of time when such high leverage situations will arise. So unless you're prepared to have Perkins warmed and ready to enter the game in every inning after the starter leaves, in every close game, you have to find another way. Most managers have settled on some version of the current model. When you give it some critical thought, there are logical reasons for that. 3). The best answer is to have a bullpen full of good pitchers, capable of reliably coming into a game and in most cases, get outs. Most games are close, and pretty much every reliever in your pen is going to face high leverage situations throughout the season, multiple times. Many people seem to think only the two or three best relievers in a bullpen matter much. Nothing could be further from the truth. Weak links in a bullpen matter. A lot.

 

While I agree that sometimes things happen so fast, and there isnt always time to get your best guy warmed up, there was plenty of time in this specific instance.

[Jim H]

Back in the 70's and 80's most closer types were used in multiple inning situations, quite frequently. With a few notable exceptions(some of whom ended up in the Hall of Fame) most burned out after a season or 2 of that kind of use. I have no idea if Perkins can handle that kind of use. Most closers are maximum effort type pitchers, often using a lot pitches to get outs. Pitching that way for 2 innings can run you up to or over 50 pitches pretty easily. Plus the extra warmup pitches between innings.

 

Most managers are a little leery of using closers that way. Some won't be able to handle that kind of workload without giving them a couple of days off in between.

[jokin]

Good thoughts. #3 is especially true and applicable.

 

Yes. Given the severe drop-off in the quality of the Twins bullpen after the first 3, putting any one but Duensing (foolishly used up earlier), Burton (not available) or Perkins in that critical 8th inning situation was bound to blow up in Gardy's face. The other options are clearly not ready, not good enough, or both, for repeated high leverage situations. Robertson, for example, appears to be hanging on to his MLB roster spot by a thread. There was very little in his performance last season or this spring that merited that roster spot. There were other offseason FA acquisition options available, Ryan chose to sit this one out, too. It's sad to look at AAA and AA and see very little in the way of left-handed relief help unless Perez somehow gets it together.

[Guest USAFChief]

While I agree that sometimes things happen so fast, and there isnt always time to get your best guy warmed up, there was plenty of time in this specific instance.

You must have missed 1).

[Brock Beauchamp]

I can't get too riled up about Gardy's pen management... Yet.

 

It was the fourth game of the season, tie game, on the road after Perkins had been up and down in the pen the night before.

 

Should Gardy have used Perk? Maybe. Should he be crucified for not using him in that situation? Absolutely not.

[Brock Beauchamp]

And tonight is a perfect reason why one shouldn't be enraged about Perkins sitting yesterday. One run lead and he's facing the meat of the lineup.

 

It's not as if Perkins had been rotting on the bench for a week before last night. A manager has to manage his pen for a long season.

[Ultima Ratio]

And tonight is a perfect reason why one shouldn't be enraged about Perkins sitting yesterday. One run lead and he's facing the meat of the lineup.

 

It's not as if Perkins had been rotting on the bench for a week before last night. A manager has to manage his pen for a long season.

 

He can't go two days in a row?

[Brock Beauchamp]

He can't go two days in a row?

 

Had Gardy done that, this would be Perkins season thus far:

 

Day Off

Pitched

Warmed Up

Pitched

Pitched

 

Is that how you want to start the season in cold weather for your best reliever?

[stringer bell]

Back in the 70's and 80's most closer types were used in multiple inning situations, quite frequently. With a few notable exceptions(some of whom ended up in the Hall of Fame) most burned out after a season or 2 of that kind of use. I have no idea if Perkins can handle that kind of use. Most closers are maximum effort type pitchers, often using a lot pitches to get outs. Pitching that way for 2 innings can run you up to or over 50 pitches pretty easily. Plus the extra warmup pitches between innings.

 

Most managers are a little leery of using closers that way. Some won't be able to handle that kind of workload without giving them a couple of days off in between.

I agree 100%. Bert and Dick talked earlier this week about Bill Campbell working over 160 innings for the Twins. He had one more good year, but was dogged by injuries and done pitching effectively in his early thirties IIRC. There are many examples of guys who were good for a year or two, but faded or went out with injuries early in their career. In addition, relievers like to know their role and if Perk gets every high leverage situation, what is the role for everyone else? If you manage every game like it the seventh game of the World Series, current players won't last.

[notoriousgod71]

Had Gardy done that, this would be Perkins season thus far:

 

Day Off

Pitched

Warmed Up

Pitched

Pitched

 

Is that how you want to start the season in cold weather for your best reliever?

 

When it's 15 pitches a night, sure why not?

[Brock Beauchamp]

When it's 15 pitches a night, sure why not?

 

In 40 degree weather? To start the season?

 

Why would you do that to your best reliever? To maybe extend a tie game an extra inning, best case scenario that you'd still need to get three more outs the following inning? The potential reward in that situation was extremely low to risk your best guy being unavailable in later games.

 

If Perkins had been sitting for three days, it'd be different. A manager can't run a bullpen like it's the World Series for a 162 game season. Be reasonable.

[Physics Guy]

In 40 degree weather? To start the season?

 

Why would you do that to your best reliever? To maybe extend a tie game an extra inning, best case scenario that you'd still need to get three more outs the following inning? The potential reward in that situation was extremely low to risk your best guy being unavailable in later games.

 

If Perkins had been sitting for three days, it'd be different. A manager can't run a bullpen like it's the World Series for a 162 game season. Be reasonable.

 

Agree completely. I will add that I am close to adding Fien to the list of 3 reliable relievers. If they don't give some of the other guys a shot, how do you know if you can trust them. It's a long season boys, let's not get too wound up yet.

[Mr. Brooks]

Back in the 70's and 80's most closer types were used in multiple inning situations, quite frequently. With a few notable exceptions(some of whom ended up in the Hall of Fame) most burned out after a season or 2 of that kind of use. I have no idea if Perkins can handle that kind of use. Most closers are maximum effort type pitchers, often using a lot pitches to get outs. Pitching that way for 2 innings can run you up to or over 50 pitches pretty easily. Plus the extra warmup pitches between innings.

 

Most managers are a little leery of using closers that way. Some won't be able to handle that kind of workload without giving them a couple of days off in between.

 

Again, you don't have to use Perkins for multiple innings there.

Let Perk get you out of that high leverage jam, and if he does, you can bring someone else out for the lower leverage situation starting the 9th with nobody on base.

[Brock Beauchamp]

Agree completely. I will add that I am close to adding Fien to the list of 3 reliable relievers. If they don't give some of the other guys a shot, how do you know if you can trust them. It's a long season boys, let's not get too wound up yet.

 

Billy Beane breaks down the season like this:

 

1st 1/3rd of season: figure out what you have

2nd 1/3rd of season: acquire what you need

3rd 1/3rd of season:: try to win it all

 

While I think that oversimplifies things a bit, the idea has merit. You have to spend time figuring out your team and letting guys play in crucial situations early in the season so you know whether to rely on them or not later on in the season.

[Mr. Brooks]

Billy Beane breaks down the season like this:

 

1st 1/3rd of season: figure out what you have

2nd 1/3rd of season: acquire what you need

3rd 1/3rd of season:: try to win it all

 

While I think that oversimplifies things a bit, the idea has merit. You have to spend time figuring out your team and letting guys play in crucial situations early in the season so you know whether to rely on them or not later on in the season.

 

Can't some of that be found out by looking at a player's body of work, and stats from last year, or previous years?

Is it really necessary to wipe the slate clean every April, so you can "find out what you have"?

I know I am taking it to the extreme, but maybe we should have brought Butera north, and made him our starting C, with Joe the backup, so that we can get Butera some critical AB's and find out if we can rely on his bat or not this year?

Robertson had his chance to "show what he can do" last year, and it wasnt pretty.

[Brock Beauchamp]

Can't some of that be found out by looking at a player's body of work, and stats from last year, or previous years?

Is it really necessary to wipe the slate clean every April, so you can "find out what you have"?

I know I am taking it to the extreme, but maybe we should have brought Butera north, and made him our starting C, with Joe the backup, so that we can get Butera some critical AB's and find out if we can rely on his bat or not this year?

Robertson had his chance to "show what he can do" last year, and it wasnt pretty.

 

That's a bit of a strawman, don't you think?

 

Robertson has 26.0 IP of Major League experience and is 25 years old.

 

Drew Butera has 531 PAs and is 29 years old.

 

I'm not talking about wiping the slate clean, I'm talking about giving inexperienced guys a shot early in the season to see if you can rely on them as the year progresses. It was the fourth game of the season, on the road, in a tie game. Going with Robertson wasn't the greatest move in the world but it was hardly the worst, either.

[jokin]

That's a bit of a strawman, don't you think?

 

Robertson has 26.0 IP of Major League experience and is 25 years old.

 

Drew Butera has 531 PAs and is 29 years old.

 

I'm not talking about wiping the slate clean, I'm talking about giving inexperienced guys a shot early in the season to see if you can rely on them as the year progresses. It was the fourth game of the season, on the road, in a tie game. Going with Robertson wasn't the greatest move in the world but it was hardly the worst, either.

 

Yesterday, as I stated before the roster move:

 

Robertson, for example, appears to be hanging on to his MLB roster spot by a thread. There was very little in his performance last season or this spring that merited that roster spot.

 

I give the Twins FO credit for nipping this one quickly (although Swarzak's effectiveness coming off the DL is itself, a major question mark). There is something currently wrong with Robertson (mechanical or health-related) and that's after the fact that he wasn't a ML-ready quality RP in the first place, as demonstrated last year.

[Brock Beauchamp]

Don't get me wrong, I don't expect anything from Robertson and I'm fine with the Twins sending him down.

[Mr. Brooks]

That's a bit of a strawman, don't you think?

 

Robertson has 26.0 IP of Major League experience and is 25 years old.

 

Drew Butera has 531 PAs and is 29 years old.

 

I'm not talking about wiping the slate clean, I'm talking about giving inexperienced guys a shot early in the season to see if you can rely on them as the year progresses. It was the fourth game of the season, on the road, in a tie game. Going with Robertson wasn't the greatest move in the world but it was hardly the worst, either.

 

I pointed out that I was taking the argument to the extreme, for effect.

I'm not bringing out the pitchforks and the torches over this. Its one inning of a long season, in which I'm not expecting much.

I just disagree with the decision, that is all.

IMO, you can find out what you have in Robertson in a lower leverage situation.

[ashbury]

IMO, you can find out what you have in Robertson in a lower leverage situation.

 

One of the things you might not be able to find out is how he does in high leverage situations.

[Mr. Brooks]

One of the things you might not be able to find out is how he does in high leverage situations.

 

Huh??

The situation does not determine how good or bad a guy will perform.

They are who they are. Is his stuff or command or control or something suddenly going to be better or worse based on the leverage of the situation?

[Guest USAFChief]

Again, you don't have to use Perkins for multiple innings there.

Let Perk get you out of that high leverage jam, and if he does, you can bring someone else out for the lower leverage situation starting the 9th with nobody on base.

Provided Perkins DOES get out of the 8th with no runs scoring--a long shot at best--you're into the 9th inning tied. Don't think that qualifies as "low leverage."

[ashbury]

The situation does not determine how good or bad a guy will perform.

 

This is a sabrmetric mantra that I actually do tend to agree with, but I'm not 100% sold that certain young players in particular are immune.

[Brock Beauchamp]

This is a sabrmetric mantra that I actually do tend to agree with, but I'm not 100% sold that certain young players in particular are immune.

 

I think history has shown that there are plenty of guys who implode in the ninth inning.

 

Sabremetrics tend to refute the notion of "clutch performances", not the other way around.

[StormJH1]

I agree with Brock that Gardy generally manages the bullpen using defined "roles" as crutches and playing for stats instead of the absolute maximization of our chances of winning. But I also agree that if you managed bullpens strictly according to sabermetrics, your best left- and right-handed relief pitchers would end up pitching absurd innings on consecutive days. And as soon as the manager decided to use someone else instead of the best option, the SABR guys would assume it was because of stats instead of rest.

 

The real issue here, and the part that is clearly indefensible, is that Tyler Robertson IS the left-handed specialist on this team. You can still have success managing with rigid bullpen roles if you have enough depth in those roles to mitigate the risk of not using your absolute "best" option every time out there. I guess they could argue that Rafael Perez was intended to have that role, but c'mon, even healthy, dude is a 4.7 K/9 guy.

 

When your middle reliever is Johnny Venters or Phil Coke to get a lefty out, it doesn't matter what their role is. When you use Tyler Robertson, without any real track record to suggest he deserves such a high-leverage role, you're asking for trouble.

[Mr. Brooks]

Provided Perkins DOES get out of the 8th with no runs scoring--a long shot at best--you're into the 9th inning tied. Don't think that qualifies as "low leverage."

 

When did I ever say it was "low" leverage?

I said "lower", which it is. None on, none out in the 9th, tied, is lower leverage than bases loaded in the 8th, tied. That is about the highest leverage situation you could think of.

[Mr. Brooks]

I think history has shown that there are plenty of guys who implode in the ninth inning.

 

Sabremetrics tend to refute the notion of "clutch performances", not the other way around.

 

There is a problem with assuming this is causation instead of just correlation.

Typically these guys don't get a large enough sample size to ever know if it is "pressure", or just a few bad outings making up a small sample size.

 

Is Mo Rivera the best closer of all time because he is incredibly "clutch", or is it just because he is THAT good?

I tend to lean towards the latter, in most examples.

[Guest USAFChief]

There is a problem with assuming this is causation instead of just correlation.

No more so than assuming there is no causation. I obviously have never played major league baseball. However, in every other situation in my life--including watching, playing, and coaching sports, some at a fairly high level, as well as a long history of working with and supervising others in some tense situations--some people have responded better to pressure than others. I'm not ready to assume that can't be true just because someone rises to the major leagues. In fact, I'm pretty confident I would wager on the opposite if forced to choose.

[Mr. Brooks]

No more so than assuming there is no causation. I obviously have never played major league baseball. However, in every other situation in my life--including watching, playing, and coaching sports, some at a fairly high level, as well as a long history of working with and supervising others in some tense situations--some people have responded better to pressure than others. I'm not ready to assume that can't be true just because someone rises to the major leagues. In fact, I'm pretty confident I would wager on the opposite if forced to choose.

 

I agree.

My point is, that unless you are going to give a guy an extremely large sample size in both high and low leverage situations, you are never going to know if a guy is really "clutch" or not.

Putting Robertson in a high leverage situation in April tells you absolutely nothing about how "clutch" he is. Even if you do it several times, it is still a TINY sample size.

I agree, it works both ways. But if you can never know, then go with what you do know- which is a guys track record and skill set.

 

It's rare to find players who have significant split differences over an entire career, between "clutch" situations, and non "clutch" situations. Typically the numbers end up virtually identical over the long run.