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.
19 comments
|
12 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Just for future reference,
I rec-ed this post solely for the Japanese dolphin hunt part. Good stuff.
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.
From all of the chatter I've heard so far, the organization is trying to get all of the Triple-A players playoff experience.
(Plus, it’s generally a good idea to not irritate your affiliates and cost them money.)
by thehemogoblin on Aug 23, 2010 11:06 PM PDT up 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
You know it was good game to miss when Jeff writes a decent sized recap while barely actually talking about the game.
You're dead to me.
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.
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
Also, his WPA was -3.9 (pretty epically bad)
and his WPA/LI was -0.5 (still bad).
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.
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 










