Navigation: Jump to content areas:


Pro Quality. Fan Perspective.
Login-facebook
Around SBN: Diego Sanchez and the Dangers of Fame in MMA

49-76, Game Thought

Driving around Portland and listening to the game on the radio, I heard Doug Fister get himself into trouble. In addressing the situation, Dave Niehaus noted that Sean White was warming up in the bullpen.

He didn't say it like that, though. He didn't say "Sean White is currently warming up in the bullpen." He said "warming in the bullpen right now: Sean White."

Those are, for all intents and purposes, the same sentence. They share the exact same meaning. But the way they're put makes all the difference to the listener on the radio. The first hits you over the head immediately. Sean White. Sean White what? Sean White is warming in the bullpen.

The second is packed with suspense. The second one builds. Warming in the bullpen: Who's warming in the bullpen? The Mariners are going to take out their starter? Who's coming in next?

The suspense only lasts a fraction of a second. It's fleeting, and if you aren't paying close attention, you'll miss it completely. If you're locked in, though, it lasts long enough for you to run through all the possible conclusions to the sentence in your head. Warming in the bullpen: David Aardsma? Brandon League? Jamey Wright? Sean White? Chris Seddon? Brian Sweeney? Garrett Olson?

During that fraction of a second, you run through all the possibilities, and you pick the one you like the most. If you're listening to a Marlins game, you're hoping for Warming in the bullpen: Clay Hensley. If you're listening to a Giants game, you're hoping for Warming in the bullpen: Brian Wilson, or Sergio Romo. And then there's still enough suspense left over for you to cross your fingers. Man, I hope it's Clay Hensley, or Brian Wilson, or Sergio Romo. Then we'll be in good hands.

In the seventh inning this afternoon, with Doug Fister getting into trouble, Dave Niehaus began a sentence with Warming in the bullpen:. And I, in turn - awaiting disclosure - ran through the possibilities. And that's when it hit me how little I trust anyone in this bullpen.

In fairness to Aardsma, he's been pretty good of late, that humid game in Baltimore notwithstanding. I don't love the guy to death, but he's a fine enough reliever. But Aardsma wasn't a possibility. Not there. Not in a tie game in the seventh. And he still isn't a guy I trust very much. So I moved on to the middle guys and the setup guys, and none of them excited me. Not one. League has the stuff, but not the brains, nor the results. And who among the remaining five would you ever want to see on the mound with a game on the line? Those five pitchers have 2276.2 big league innings to their names. Over those 2276.2 innings, they've allowed 1415 runs, for an RA of 5.59. They're replacement-level relievers, and the thing about replacement-level relievers is that they scare the living crap out of you. Over a suitable amount of time, this bullpen would spark more rallies than the Japanese dolphin hunt.

Dave Niehaus said Warming in the bullpen:, I considered the options, and I came away disappointed. The suspense - the brief, transient blip of suspense - is almost cruel. It tricks you into believing that things might get better. Warming up in the bullpen: do we have a good bullpen? Who are our best relievers? Who's the most likely fit for this critical situation? You need a moment to assess the possibilities, and before you assess, there's a glimmer of hope. Standing on deck: is it a great hitter? Is it a Triple Crown candidate? Jack Wilson. It doesn't matter how familiar you are with a team; nothing comes automatically. You always need that split second to work things out for yourself.

Warming in the bullpen: well, it could be this guy, or this other guy, or...oh.

Sean White. Oh no.

From this point forward, whenever one of the current Mariner relievers is warming in the bullpen, I hope Dave just tells us, hey, this guy is warming in the bullpen. If only for a moment, I'm sick of getting duped.

Comment 19 comments  |  12 recs  | 

Do you like this story?

Comments

Display:

Just for future reference,

I rec-ed this post solely for the Japanese dolphin hunt part. Good stuff.

by doublemazaa on Aug 23, 2010 10:41 PM PDT reply actions  

Will Cortes and Lueke be coming up Sept 1?

Or will they be kept down in Tacoma to try to win a AAA Championship? I’m ambivalent… I mean, it would be nice to see guys in the pen who at least have a chance to get outs. But – for their development is it better to win? And – for PR alone, I doubt that Lueke sees Seattle this season.

by ICANHIT on Aug 23, 2010 10:59 PM PDT reply actions  

We don't know

It’s worth noting that Lueke isn’t on the 40-man roster. Cortes is, but he’s also a newer adjustment to the bullpen, so they might want to give him a little more seasoning. As thehemogoblin points out, Tacoma’s gunning for the playoffs, which could be a positive experience.

by Jeff Sullivan on Aug 23, 2010 11:42 PM PDT up reply actions  

If they can't play Lueke now for PR reasons they can't play him anytime

There is really no better time, for PR purposes, to introduce him than when nobody is watching. Nobody is interested enough in the team right now to drum up outrage. Not saying that they will do it now, but if they keep him in Tacoma it’s not going to be for the sake of PR.

They didn’t trade for him just to fret over his criminal history like a lot of people seem wont to do. Please god can we stop doing this every time his name is brought up.

by OlSalty on Aug 23, 2010 11:53 PM PDT up reply actions   9 recs

Funny how the pen was supposed to be pretty damn good for us this year

Makes me wonder how much of Bavasi’s good-bullpen-building was actually skill and how much was him getting lucky on extracting good seasons from enough guys each year.

There’s a lot of talk about how relievers are fungible, and not worth spending money on because its easy to find others who are as good but cheap. I’d say it’s more that relievers aren’t worth spending money on because they’re way too inconsistent. There’s a small group that is an exception to this, of course. But if you’re headed into the season and one of your team’s biggest strengths is the relief corps, chances are you’re boned. I’m looking at you, Oakland.

De Gutibus non disputandum est

by Bearskin Rugburn on Aug 24, 2010 8:48 AM PDT reply actions  

I was looking for examples of inconsistency, and found this gem:

Bobby Ayala 1997: 4.45 FIP, 3.82 ERA
Bobby Ayala 1998: 3.96 FIP, 7.29 ERA

His FIP was actually better in 1997, but his actual ERA doubled…mostly due to a BABIP that jumped by 90 points, and a LOB% that plummeted from 78% to 53%.

Ridiculously, he was actually more more WAR in 1998 than 1997 (.8: to .4). I have no idea how THAT math works out.

I am going to come into your house at night and rec up the place.

by HititHere on Aug 24, 2010 9:42 AM PDT up reply actions  

Well not to wear out the old cliche but sample size...

nearly all pitchers will have a run of poor results here and again. For a reliever, a short run of bad luck can ruin an entire season because a reliever will only face some 200 batters in a year.

De Gutibus non disputandum est

by Bearskin Rugburn on Aug 24, 2010 10:27 AM PDT up reply actions  

This is a good time to point out not all WAR are the same

Fangraphs says his WAR in 1998 was 0.8. Rally’s method says -2.3. That has to be the biggest discrepancies ever.

by Edgar for Pres on Aug 24, 2010 10:39 AM PDT up reply actions  

FanGraphs' WAR is done via FIP

Rally is RA I believe

This keeps coming up, here and elsewhere, and I don’t get why. WAR is simply a system of combining various inputs. People need to both what the inputs are and what limitations they have.

by Matthew on Aug 24, 2010 1:47 PM PDT up reply actions  

Yeah I should have said exactly what you sadi

The differences between the two are usually small but in some cases can be pretty big.

by Edgar for Pres on Aug 24, 2010 1:59 PM PDT up reply actions  

Is there a way to weight the WARs against each other to account for those differences?

Is the comparative ratio 1:1? Can you just add the two together and divide by two to get a more accurate measure? Would that measure actually be more accurate?

by thehemogoblin on Aug 24, 2010 6:02 PM PDT up reply actions  

They are measuring different things

Rally’s method is more focused on results and tries to work back to figure out who deserves credit. Fangraphs works the other way from looking at a pitcher’s peripherals and tries to figure out how valuable a pitcher was. I think Statcorner’s method of using tRA is superior to Fangraphs if you are going to use a pitcher’s peripherals to try to back out a pitcher’s value. Rally’s method is intriguing though.

I wouldn’t say rWAR (Rally’s) or fWAR (Fangraphs) is more or less accurate. They are just different. Its boils down to whether you are interested in how well a pitcher did (rWAR) or how good a pitcher was (fWAR).

by Edgar for Pres on Aug 24, 2010 6:52 PM PDT up reply actions  

More accurate? Than what? By what measure?

There’s no objective “truth” to measure these against.

by Matthew on Aug 25, 2010 11:35 AM PDT up reply actions  

Comments For This Post Are Closed


User Tools

By reading a game thread of your own volition you agree to accept all liability for any and all damage done to your delicate sensibilities.

FanPosts

Community blog posts and discussion.

Recommended FanPosts

Moar_bacon_small
Everything I Know About Jesus Montero

Recent FanPosts

Wbc_029_small
Friday Morning Music Thread
Small
OTDOD - Early February Edition
Agentejebaox3_small
A Statistical Analysis of Mariners' Fan Support
Small
Who will have a better season?
Claw_small
BA's Top 10 M's Prospects
Wbc_029_small
Friday Morning Music Thread
Small
Munenori Kawasaki Predictions!!!
Small
The Longevity and Future Success of Felix Hernandez.
Small
The present vs future conundrum

+ New FanPost All FanPosts >


Sexy People

Wbc_029_small Jeff Sullivan

Small Matthew