The almighty save!

[jim]

I don't think the "save stat" has anything to do with TLR's decision-making here. TLR always plays matchups, right? I think Flores was going to face the first two guys regardless, if both had gotten on or scored, then I think Izzy probably faces Edwin (righty), and then perhaps TJ faces Hatteberg, and then Franklin if a righty comes.

He plays matchups up until the 9th. Then he goes on autopilot, it's the closers game. I don't think for a moment that was the plan. I don't think for a moment that Izzy was coming in to start the 9th against 2 lefties in a row ( and 3 out of 4) if it was a save situation.

No save situation = Izzy doens't come in.
Save situation = Izzy comes in.

When you bounce from save to non-save back to save, you get Izzy up and down and up and in.

RC used "dry humping", I've heard the "dry heaves". But whatever, it's a practice I would really try to avoid with my older guys in the pen.

[Hungary Jack]

I don't think the "save stat" has anything to do with TLR's decision-making here. TLR always plays matchups, right? I think Flores was going to face the first two guys regardless, if both had gotten on or scored, then I think Izzy probably faces Edwin (righty), and then perhaps TJ faces Hatteberg, and then Franklin if a righty comes.

He plays matchups up until the 9th. Then he goes on autopilot, it's the closers game. I don't think for a moment that was the plan. I don't think for a moment that Izzy was coming in to start the 9th against 2 lefties in a row ( and 3 out of 4) if it was a save situation.

No save situation = Izzy doens't come in.
Save situation = Izzy comes in.

When you bounce from save to non-save back to save, you get Izzy up and down and up and in.

RC used "dry humping", I've heard the "dry heaves". But whatever, it's a practice I would really try to avoid with my older guys in the pen.

I think we agree (not sure if we ever disagreed). I guess I interpreted your original post as an argument that TLR was motivated by a statistical consideration for Izzy (opportunity for a save), rather than matchups. I agree that getting Izzy up in the 8th was a waste--better see how Flores fares against the first two lefties before having him warm up for the righty Encarnacion with another lefty to follow.

[valley_card22]

Lord Knows Im not a Math guy. But isnt there a 50/50 chance each batter reaches base or gets out

There was 1 runner on in a 5-2 game. Who knows what happends if Thompson or whoever comes in and the ball doesnt get hit to Eck. Lets say the error still happends. Two on two out. I have 0 idea of the math, but Im gonna stand at my 50/50 chance.

[jim]

I don't think the "save stat" has anything to do with TLR's decision-making here. TLR always plays matchups, right? I think Flores was going to face the first two guys regardless, if both had gotten on or scored, then I think Izzy probably faces Edwin (righty), and then perhaps TJ faces Hatteberg, and then Franklin if a righty comes.

He plays matchups up until the 9th. Then he goes on autopilot, it's the closers game. I don't think for a moment that was the plan. I don't think for a moment that Izzy was coming in to start the 9th against 2 lefties in a row ( and 3 out of 4) if it was a save situation.

No save situation = Izzy doens't come in.
Save situation = Izzy comes in.

When you bounce from save to non-save back to save, you get Izzy up and down and up and in.

RC used "dry humping", I've heard the "dry heaves". But whatever, it's a practice I would really try to avoid with my older guys in the pen.

I think we agree (not sure if we ever disagreed). I guess I interpreted your original post as an argument that TLR was motivated by a statistical consideration for Izzy (opportunity for a save), rather than matchups. I agree that getting Izzy up in the 8th was a waste--better see how Flores fares against the first two lefties before having him warm up for the righty Encarnacion with another lefty to follow.

You interpreted correctly. I believe the save stat was the prime motivator in how Izzy was warmed up and brought in. It would have been much easier on him to just come in after he warmed up. If the plan was to start the 9th with him (I believe it was when the score was 3-1), then better stick to that plan even in a low leverage, non save situation than yanking with him.

I'm sure he would have heard from some statistical person that it wasn't wise to call him in a low leverage situation. The realities are you have to warm a guy up, and when he warmed him TLR couldn't really know the situation that awaited him in the 9th. But from a purely physical point of view, I would stick to the plan.

[jim]

Lord Knows Im not a Math guy. But isnt there a 50/50 chance each batter reaches base or gets out

There was 1 runner on in a 5-2 game. Who knows what happends if Thompson or whoever comes in and the ball doesnt get hit to Eck. Lets say the error still happends. Two on two out. I have 0 idea of the math, but Im gonna stand at my 50/50 chance.

I don't really know what you are talking about but I think you are missing my point. It's not that they brought him in, it's how they did it and what motivated them. I would have rather brought him in earlier since he was warmed up. I also think that if the game stayed a non-save situation, you would have had Izzy up in the pen two different times without ever coming in.

[JL21]

Lord Knows Im not a Math guy. But isnt there a 50/50 chance each batter reaches base or gets out

Sort of.... actually, you'd have to look at each player's career OBP and then combine that with the pitchers' OBP against to develop the guy's probability of reaching base. It would be less than 50%, almost certainly. And THEN you'd have to figure the odds of SEVERAL players in a row reaching base in such a way that 3 runs score before one out is made.

Long story short, the odds are way less than 50%. In 2004, teams in the same situation as the Reds (trailing by 3 on the road with 2 outs and a runner on first in the 9th inning) never won. The probability in 2004 was zero percent.

[Popeye_Card]

I think you've got a fair point, jim. I don't know that the save rule came into play in the decision, exactly, but it probably would have been best to not use Isringhausen in a low-leverage situation. At that point, they only needed one more out, had a 3-run lead, and only one guy on base. Jeff Fassero could've closed that out.

The problem was, it was developing into a high leverage situation (2 run lead, with the heart of the Reds' order coming up), until the Cards tacked on two more to make it low-leverage.

But Izzy was warming up in earnest to handle the high leverage role. So at that point, you either plan to sit him back down and let Flores close it out, or use Izzy. You're not going to warm up another guy (Franklin, etc.) that you would normaly use in a lower-leverage situation, because then you've burned 2 righties. Not in the game, but in terms of being ready to pitch Thursday afternoon.

I think it was Flores' to close out, but he was giving up some hard-hit balls in the 9th. I thought it was a bit silly to bring in Izzy until the tying run came to the plate, but I'm happy to close out the win too--however we got there.

--P--

[Secret Weapon]

Since Izzy is on my fantasy team I thought it was a brilliant move.

[JL21]

I thought it was a bit silly to bring in Izzy until the tying run came to the plate,

Aye, but there's the rub. Izzy came in before the tying run was at the plate, no?

[Fan_In_NY]

I like how the Red Sox are going about this. Everyone remembers their "failed attempt at a bullpen by committee" as evidence that "teams need a good closer." I think that if they stuck with the plan it would have worked, but anyhow, even today with Pap, there is an interesting innovation. Example: April 13 against LAA. Boston is leading 4-1 in the eighth. With one out, there's a hit batsman, a single, and a throwing error -- runners at second and third, only one out, no DP situation, and Vlad at bat as the tying run, and Garrett Anderson on deck.

What to do? So many choices! Intentionally walk Vlad? Start the lefty-righty carousel of set-up men? The irony is, all of the current conventional wisdom approaches will result in Papelbon pitching in the 9th to the bottom of the lineup, at a time when the game is already in hand. The heavy lifting is NOW, when the middle of the order is up, a base hit makes it a one-run game, and an elite slugger is at bat as the potential tying run.

Here's what the Sox do. They bring in Papelbon right there. And as he is walking out of the pen towards the mound to take his warm-up tosses, they get Timlin up in the pen! The plan is, bring in your BEST PITCHER at the moment the game is on the line, to get you out of the jam. If he is successful and you have a two or three run lead in the 9th, practically anyone on the staff can come on in the ninth and "manage" to get three outs before the opposition strings together enough hits to tie the game or take the lead. Papelbon comes on with the game on the line; if he does his job, Timlin can HAVE the so-called "save." Let him pitch the 9th, give up a single and a walk, get the third out before any runs score, and collect the save; that's FINE for a 9th inning facing the bottom of the order with a lead -- but it is NOT fine with men on base, the tying run at the plate, and the middle of the order due up with five outs to go.

Papelbon comes on to strike out Vlad (no easy feat -- despite his free-swinging ways, Vlad strikes out an average of about 65 times a season). Anderson is retired on a floater to left. As the Sox come off the field, Timlin is ready and marches from the bullpen to the dugout to pitch the 9th with a three-run lead.

The Sox score 6 in the bottom of the 8th, and Timlin is deprived of his "save." But the willingness to deploy his most effective pitcher at a key spot may have been the difference.

True, and I have a few comments about this. First of all, managers use this as a crutch. They know they wont get much blame from the fans and the media if their closer blows a save situation in the 9th, because that is what the closer gets paid for. However, if a lesser reliever blows it in the 9th against the bottom third of the order everyone will be up in arms. It takes the blame out of his hands (one of the few times that happens).

Looking at the Red Sox situation, they stated before the season when Paps was being moved back into the closer role that they werent going to use him for multi-inning saves this year for fear of injuring his arm. Obviously they haven't entirely followed this, but that could have been why Timlin was warming up anyway.

In addition, the closer-by-committee is one of those things that looks great on paper, but is nearly impossible to implement correctly. Basically you need a whole bullpen of top notch RPs to make it work, and they all need to do their job. The only team that seem to make something similar to that work was the Tigers last season. They were using Zumaya and Rodney in the big spots in the 6th, 7th and 8th inning as needed. However they still went with Todd Jones only in the 9th. Basically all managers tend to put their relievers in a spot to succeed. However they dont get the job done a lot of the time, and it doesnt make a difference if that happens in the 6th, 7th or 9th inning. I mean if it was so easy to get pitchers to have success in the 9th, how come the Indians couldnt find anyone to do it last year? Or the Devil Rays last year? Or the D-backs... Basically closer by committee works, only if all the pitchers are successful.