See copyright notice at the bottom of this page.
List of All Posters
Reliever Usage Pattern, 1999-2002 (June 24, 2003)
Discussion ThreadPosted 4:12 p.m.,
June 25, 2003
(#13) -
aaron
Great stuff Tango.
I'm confused by the concept of "average game state". When you use "average game state" as a baseline, are you referring to the average state for the league or the particular team in question? Do teams that play a lot of close games have a higher LI over the course of the season than teams involved in many blowouts?
What might be interesting for this chart is an indication of each reliever's percentage of the team's total reliever innings at each leverage category.
For example. Troy Percival had 29% of his innings at 2.5+ leverage. What percentage of the team's total relief innings at 2.5+ leverage did Troy Percival pitch? Many teams have far fewer of these high leverage relief situations to go around, presumably meaning that their ace relievers (and all their other relievers as well, of course) will also get a smaller percentage of these high leverage innings.
It seems like you would need this calculation to determine how a team was actually using their relievers, or am i missing something?
Pankin - Walking Bonds - SABR presentation (August 17, 2003)
Posted 3:47 p.m.,
August 21, 2003
(#2) -
aaron
August 20th, 2003. Aurilia on 3rd, Grissom at 1st. 1 out, bottom of the 9th, tied at 1 versus the Braves. Without a second thought, Bobby Cox walks Bonds to face Alfonso (can't remember who was pitching).
Tango, you seemed to indicate DO NOT WALK in your tables, but there was no hesitation on the part of Cox (or probably any other manager in that situation).
Interestingly, Alfonso (like Bonds) is a very tough strikeout. At any rate, he singled up the middle for the victory.
Would you really prefer to face Bonds with 1st and 3rd 1 out rather than a rather average these days Alfonso with the bases loaded? Another interesting point is that on the Grissom single, Aurilia gambled and went for third beating a bad throw by one of the outfielders. Seems like a bad time to gamble knowing that you are forcing Cox to walk Bonds no matter your success or failure.
Pankin - Walking Bonds - SABR presentation (August 17, 2003)
Posted 6:44 p.m.,
August 21, 2003
(#4) -
aaron
Actually, Gryboski was brought in for the ninth with the score at 1-1. Apparently the Braves are unfamiliar with LI *grin*. I guess with such a big division lead it is not so crucial to bring in Smoltz, but of course, one would expect the Braves to be gunning for what may be their biggest obstacle to the world series...
The day before?
4-3 Braves up to start the bottom of the 8th: Cox brings in Hodges who gives up a run before finishing the inning.
4-4 to start the bottom of the 9th: Cox leaves in Hodges who finishes the inning without giving up a run.
4-4 to start the bottom of the 10th: Cox brings in King. Bonds up first hits a homerun to win it.
As best I can tell, Smoltz had not worked since Aug 14, giving him 5 days of rest before the game I first mentioned. And as far as I know, he is not injured in any way. Seems a shame not to use him in either of these games.
Where was Smoltz??
Pankin - Walking Bonds - SABR presentation (August 17, 2003)
Posted 1:19 a.m.,
August 22, 2003
(#6) -
aaron
One more time for Cox...
August 22. Smoltz hasn't worked for over a week now.
Bottom of the ninth, tied at 3. Cox brings in Cunnane to face the 9,1, and 2 batters. 3 up, 3 down
Bottom of the tenth, tied at 3. Cox brings in Hodges to face Grissom and then Bonds. With 1 out, Bonds hits it out to win the game.
Oh where, oh where was Smoltz??
Pankin - Walking Bonds - SABR presentation (August 17, 2003)
Posted 6:38 p.m.,
August 22, 2003
(#9) -
aaron
Tango
Not sure if anyone else is reading this but...
I had assumed you were including runs on sacrifices and ground outs of course as I alluded to with my statement about Alfonso (along with Bonds) being tough to strike out. Perhaps in other game situations these events are negligible, but in the late innings of close games they are crucial!
Hope that solves the problem.