Putting out fires with Coffey

[Spitball]

Closers are usually the best reliever on the team. He typically comes into a game to pitch the ninth inning with his team ahead by three or fewer runs. Many closers regularly pitch one inning and actually have very few opportunities to stop inherited runners.

Is this really the best way to use your most dominating relief pitcher? Is this really the metaphorical fireman coming into put out the metaphorical fire? Would it not be better to use your most dominating pitcher as a more flexible pawn that is available to face batters when runners are threatening at any time?

I believe the importance on the save statstic may have placed unnecessary limitations on the best reliever on the team. I think inherited runner statistics are a more important measure of a reliever's worth yet I have a very hard time even finding them.

For this reason, I like having the Reds' best reliever, Coffey, available any time from the sixth inning and beyond. Let him be the guy that the Reds can bring into the game in the sixth inning with runners on first and second and Albert Pujols at the plate. How strategically foolish would it be to have that situation and have Coffey waiting for the ninth inning where he might be facing Miles, Bigbie, and Rodriguez?

[ochre]

I agree. For two-three years there, I felt Sullivan was the best reliever the Reds had, largely for this reason.

[redsfan30]

Keep using him exactly how you've been using him. He has been playing with fire recently and I'm not sure putting him in the 9th inning right now would be the best thing to do.

[Rojo]

Bill James did something with this very thought. He came to the conclusion that two Jeff Nelson's beat one Mariano Rivera.

[redsrule2500]

Originally Posted by ochre

I agree. For two-three years there, I felt Sullivan was the best reliever the Reds had, largely for this reason.

I agree completely, Scott was a dependable reliver you could bring in to get out of the inning

[toledodan]

Originally Posted by redsrule2500

I agree completely, Scott was a dependable reliver you could bring in to get out of the inning

plus he owned jeff bagwell!!!!!!!!!

[Marc D]

Personally I wonder if Kriv isn't using Weathers as the closer for other reasons. Namely to shine him up as best we can with that "Save" stat so many GM's are likely to overpay for. All the while knowing our "real" closer is in house, young, cheap and under our control for the forseeable future. I think Kriv is capable of that kind of subtle touch and vision but then I look and see McCraken and White on the team and my faith wanes considerably.

[4256 Hits]

Originally Posted by Marc D

Personally I wonder if Kriv isn't using Weathers as the closer for other reasons. Namely to shine him up as best we can with that "Save" stat so many GM's are likely to overpay for. All the while knowing our "real" closer is in house, young, cheap and under our control for the forseeable future. I think Kriv is capable of that kind of subtle touch and vision but then I look and see McCraken and White on the team and my faith wanes considerably.

I agree, Plus the less saves Coffey gets now may lower the amount he gets in arbitation in a couple years.

[KronoRed]

I don't think Weathers would fetch much, even with a big save total he won't get.

[Dan]

Wasn't that Jack McKeon's approach to using a bullpen? Use the best available guy if the situation warranted it regardless of whether it was the 6th or 9th inning?

[Spitball]

Originally Posted by Dan

Wasn't that Jack McKeon's approach to using a bullpen? Use the best available guy if the situation warranted it regardless of whether it was the 6th or 9th inning?

Really good point. McKeon really used that bullpen well in the right situations.

He had Sullivan to eat innings.

Gabe White or Dennys Reyes to get out lefties.

Scott Williamson when he needed a strikeout.

Danny Graves when he needed a groundball.

In 1999, McKeon employed that bullpen to its maximum because he used their strengths in situations that maximized their strengths.

[TeamSelig]

Also, I never really understood why you would use your best pitcher for just one inning? Why not stretch out your best pitcher, and use him for 2-3 innings every other day, instead of using him whenever there is a lead in the last inning?

[Spitball]

Originally Posted by TeamSelig

Also, I never really understood why you would use your best pitcher for just one inning? Why not stretch out your best pitcher, and use him for 2-3 innings every other day, instead of using him whenever there is a lead in the last inning?

Your right, and why not use your best reliever to "put out fires"? With runners on, what sense does it make to bring in a Rick White and save Todd Coffey to come into the game in the ninth with the bases empty?

To me, stopping inherited runners should be the most important numbers for relievers, and I can't even find the statistics for it. Does anyone have a link?

[KronoRed]

Originally Posted by TeamSelig

Also, I never really understood why you would use your best pitcher for just one inning? Why not stretch out your best pitcher, and use him for 2-3 innings every other day, instead of using him whenever there is a lead in the last inning?

All the more reason the "save" stat should be abolished.

[TeamSelig]

Well, I believe that you need a good reliever to end the game when you are only up by a run. But your best reliever? I'd put my 2nd or 3rd best pitcher (in the pen) as a closer. My best pitcher would be very flexible and capable of handling 3 innings if needed. I want my best pitcher in the bullpen to pitch 100 IP or close to. Second best pitcher to put out fires, stop inherited runs, etc.

Too bad we don't even have 3 quality arms to put them in those situations.