Sizing up the ALCS - Relief Pitching

[Orange Juiced]

As good as the Tigers' rotation is, their bullpen leaves a lot to be desired. They posted the 7th worst bullpen era in all of baseball this year, at 4.01. They don't have a lot of guys that scare you. Their closer is Joaquin Benoit, who is pretty good. 2.01 era, 24 sv, 1.03 whip, 9.8 k/9. After that, they have power arms with strikeout ability, but their real-life production just wasn't that great. Here are their main bullpen arms:

Smyly: 2.37 era, 1.04 whip, 9.6 k/9
Alburquerque: 4.59 era, 1.49 whip, 12.9 k/9
Coke: 5.40 era, 1.67 whip, 7.0 k/9
Putkonen: 3.03 era, 1.32 whip, 8.5 k/9
Alvarez: 5.82 era, 1.50 whip, 7.2 k/9

Smyly, Coke, and Alvarez are lefties, and Coke has had some success against the Red Sox before. But on the whole, if you can get past their starters, you have a chance to do some real damage against this group. The difficulty, of course, is getting past their outstanding starters.

Just as the Red Sox' rotation is very good but a slight tick below Detroit's, their bullpen isn't great but a slight tick better than Detroit's. The Sox' bullpen posted the 10th worst era in baseball, at 3.70. They are led by one of the most dominating closers in recent years in Koji Uehara. All he did this year was put up a ridiculous line of 1.09 era, 0.56 whip, and 12.2 k/9. He had a string of 12 straight perfect innings, in the midst of an incredible run of 30.1 innings without giving up a single run. Simply put, when the ball has been in Koji's hands, the other team not only doesn't score, they almost never get guys on base. That's an awesome weapon to have at the end of games.

Setting him up are two guys that have had terrific seasons: Junichi Tazawa and Craig Breslow. Tazawa faded a little late in the season, but had a fine year, putting up a line of 3.16 era, 1.20 whip, and 9.5 k/9. Breslow was fantastic, with a 1.81 era and 1.12 whip. And he may have saved his best for the end of the year. His performance in game 4 of the ALDS was phenomenal against Tampa. Over his last 28 regular season games, covering 25.2 ip, he allowed just 12 hits and just one run. So late in the game, the Red Sox seem to be in good shape.

They're in less good shape getting there, if the starters can't go at least six innings. The group consisting of Workman, Morales, Thornton, Dempster, and Doubront does not inspire a lot of confidence, so, just like with the Tigers, if teams can get the Sox' starter out relatively early, they can make hay against this weak part of the Red Sox' bullpen. Fortunately for Boston, it's not that easy getting to the starters.

In the final analysis, the Red Sox have the advantage in the bullpen, not just because they have the best closer in the league, but because their back 1-2-3 is better than Detroit's.

EDGE: BOSTON

[sk7326]

Boston's bullpen is nothing special - 10th in ERA this season. Detroits also not special - 12th. Now, what is interesting is that for the most part, bullpen ERA did not correlate much with who actually was successful. Tampa was 7th, Toronto was 4th.

In 2012, this was more in line with Tampa, Oakland, Baltimore, leading the pack. Though once again Detroit 10th, Yanks 7th, Rangers 6th. Red Sox 4th in 2011 and so on.

On the other hand:

2013: The top 5 teams in Starters ERA: Detroit, Oakland, Tampa, Boston, Kansas City (with Cleveland, Texas taking next 2 spots)
2012: Tampa, Detroit, Oakland, Seattle, Anaheim (Yankees #6, Rangers #8)
2011: Tampa, Anaheim, Texas, Oakland, Yankees, Mariners, Tigers

Basically starter's ERA has been a much more durable predictor of playoff timber than bullpen ERA. I guess what I am saying is - we quibble about the Red Sox middle relief, but I'd temper it by noting:

1. Middle relief is the weak spot of EVERY bullpen, even the good ones
2. If we are getting into any bullpen early our chances to win go up

The Red Sox back of the bullpen is very strong, stronger than Detroit's ... if we are counting on 5th and 6th inning guys to win a postseason series, we have much bigger problems.

[OriginalUsername]

The Tigers relievers pitched the fewest innings in baseball. Their starters work deep into games which can mask a suspect bullpen. Benoit has been really good all year. Smyly has been dominate most of the year except for a recent shaky stretch. On about 90% of teams in baseball, Smyly would be in the rotation. He was the Tigers 5th starter last year as a rookie, but the addition of Sanchez forced him to the bullpen. The Tigers also have Porcello working out of the bullpen. Coke has been ineffective and wasn't even on the post season roster this last series. Rondon was starting to have a good season before he went down with injury. Jose Veras was acquired in a traded but has been a little shaky recently.

[jung]

The key is actually to keep those 5th and 6th inning guys out of the game altogether while getting the opponent's 5th and 6th inning guys into the game as often and as soon as possible.

You will want to watch starter success with secondary pitches. For example in general the curve ball is not as used as much by pitchers as it once was but when a guy throws it for strikes it makes getting to strike 2 and ultimately an out so much easier. Pitch counts stay down...starters get through innings faster and with much more regularity. So watch for success with secondary pitches....can the starter throw them, does the ump see them as strikes (more and more a question of chance and a real wild card) and last but most important, are they enough to keep the hitters off balance? Do they earn the pitcher easy strikes or are they just floating up to the plate...nothing pitches that are so bad that the hitter sends them zipping past the pitchers ear on their way to the outfield even though the hitter was likely sitting for a FB?

or.....

are they somewhere in between.....not floating up to the plate but pitches that the ump doesn't often enough see as strikes for example. Where they fall on that spectrum of goodness or badness often spells out whether your starter can make it into the late innings or will be toast by the 5th summoning fresh meat from the pen.

These championship series will be decided on pitching and defense as is so often the case. Two runs will often seem like an avalanche of offense.

[User Name?]

jung, i don't understand where you're coming up with the idea that curveballs are thrown less now than they used to be. I did an analysis the first time you mentioned it using data from 2001 to the present, and if anything, curveballs were thrown slightly more on average the past three seasons (10.9%) than the 2001-2010 seasons (9.3%). If anything, since 2001 (the year when pitch percentage data is available for fangraphs) the usage of the pitch has steadily increased.

The premise is incorrect.

[jung]

I am going back way farther than that though and I am talking about the curve specifically, not all breaking balls. I have not checked for any shift in the 2000's at all. I would definitely think all breaking balls are up even going back to the 70's. In fact I would there is no question about it.

I just happen to think that the curve is particularly effective because if thrown right it breaks really big and when a guy like Verlander or Lester can throw that particular breaking ball for strikes, he really has an asset. But that is also one of the things that makes it a tough decision for pitchers. Umps really have a difficult time seeing them for a high percentage as strikes. It also seems like if the catcher moves his glove at all the ump calls a ball regardless of what pitch the pitcher has thrown. But a big breaking curve can pose some difficulties for the catcher as well again given how often umps call a borderline pitch a ball if he does move his mitt.

When Verlander is on he can throw his curve for strikes. Lester can throw his for strikes when he is on. I will try to see if I can find something relevant to all breaking balls on a longer time span. That might be the more relevant data point anyway. Although as I said above, I would think it a cinch that all breaking balls would be up even over a longer time span than the 2000's.

[User Name?]

I'm talking specifically about the curveball, and my post mentions nothing about any other pitch than the curveball. If you go all the way back to 1985 (which is the earliest year that i could find) the percentage of curveballs thrown is still slightly lower than the 2010-2013 number. The 70's are sure to be a whole other deal, since the curveball was the premier pitch of many a dominant pitcher, but i bet the percentage wouldn't be far off. Again, the premise is incorrect.

[sk7326]

Some pitches have lost luster, often for health reasons (although not sure how much of those concerns are fair). Splitter, Screwball ... I still see the curve a lot, although clearly the preference is to work off the fastball.

Starters I think in older times had a lot of pitches to mess around with, but now the philosophy is to throw 3 pitches well and focus on that. It is hard to start without a quality 3rd pitch - especially something that can impact both sides of the plate.

[User Name?]

The league's preference to work off the fastball is not new. Specialized relievers have actually improved the appearance rate of certain breaking balls, since more pitchers in the league equals more pitchers throwing different type of pitches. The fact that the curveball percentage remains so high is a testament to the league's attachment to the pitch. Some of it may have to do with the concerns raised (as mentioned above) by the slider, cutter and spliiter.

[sk7326]

When I was a kid, I remember Roger Craig with the Giants as a splitter guru ... now the guy in the bigs is someone like Don Cooper in Chicago who has rescued so many schlubs by teaching cutters. Or at least "see how a cutter looks" is a useful first stop for a guy who is a rescue case.

UN is right that with all of the specialization, the curves still persist, although specialists are taking up the slack for any observed downturn in starter usage.

Definitely the screwball has been phased out - the circle change gets the same job done with far less effort.

[seabeachfred]

When I was a kid, I remember Roger Craig with the Giants as a splitter guru ... now the guy in the bigs is someone like Don Cooper in Chicago who has rescued so many schlubs by teaching cutters. Or at least "see how a cutter looks" is a useful first stop for a guy who is a rescue case.

UN is right that with all of the specialization, the curves still persist, although specialists are taking up the slack for any observed downturn in starter usage.

Definitely the screwball has been phased out - the circle change gets the same job done with far less effort.

To me it has always been a good fastball, solid curve, or slerve, and definitely a damn good change-up. Your overhand curve is sometimes very hard to throw for strikes and there is the risk of balls bouncing in the dirt and even an umpire missing the break exactly. The slerve is a modified curve thrown three-quarters overhand, easy to teach and easier to control and works amazingly well as an out pitch. As for the change, there is nothing that throws a batter's timing off more than an effective change-up. My pitchers on the teams I coached really improved their game when I suddenly stopped being stubborn and listened to a friend to insisted I teach that pitch. I became deeply in love with that pitch-----but know when to throw it and keep it down if you can.

[jung]

I will try to see what I can find for these pitches for the time frame I was referencing. Again I have to believe that total breaking balls is up but I can't believe that the curve percentages are up from where they were in the 60's and early 70's. I could buy some small increases from the mid 80's on but not the 70's and surely not the 60's. Many more pitchers had good curve ball in those decades and most threw them with more regularity than you see today.

I think guys give up on it more often today than they used to because they get an ump that gives up on it and won't call it for a strike or they just don't have it on that particular day. More often than not a good curve just freezes hitters these days certainly more so than it did back in the 60's and 70's. There were not as many alternate breaking balls being thrown back then. So if you saw something other than the FB, it was curve or screwball (now gone) or change up with fewer guys throwing sliders. As I recall the slider was still called by many the nickel curve in the 60's and earlier and that name still hung on with some into the very early 70's which to some extent tells you how import the curve was then. The slider did not even have its own name yet and something that broke like that was simply referred to as something that was not quite a full curve ball, as in something that broke kinda' like a curve but not as big. There is earlier reference to something called a slider but those pitchers were actually throwing something like what we now call a cut fastball. Feller may have been the first to throw the slider with any regularity.

Bob Gibson probably had the best of the nickel curves/Sliders of the 60's and it was not a pitch hitters saw every day. As such Gibson had tremendous success with that pitch. In fact it was the onrushing train that was the slider that cut sharply into the number of big breaking curve balls that pitchers were throwing in the 60's and early 70's. The slider really came on the 70's and was as important to the 70's as the curve was to the 60's. If anything the slider is responsible for the difference in the number of curves thrown today as compared to the number of curves thrown through the 60's and very early 70's.

I do tend to agree that the curve may well come back to where it was in the 60's and 70's for no other reason than the amount of abuse the pitchers arm takes throwing other breaking pitches. These other breaking pitches are certainly no longer as unique as they once were and pitchers now know how tough some of them can be on your arm. The big curve is certainly a thing of beauty when thrown as good as it gets but you don't really see that as often as we did certainly in the 60's and early 70's.

[User Name?]

To me it has always been a good fastball, solid curve, or slerve, and definitely a damn good change-up. Your overhand curve is sometimes very hard to throw for strikes and there is the risk of balls bouncing in the dirt and even an umpire missing the break exactly. The slerve is a modified curve thrown three-quarters overhand, easy to teach and easier to control and works amazingly well as an out pitch. As for the change, there is nothing that throws a batter's timing off more than an effective change-up. My pitchers on the teams I coached really improved their game when I suddenly stopped being stubborn and listened to a friend to insisted I teach that pitch. I became deeply in love with that pitch-----but know when to throw it and keep it down if you can.

You mean slurve, which is a slider/curve hybrid, and is incredibly hard to perfect, but damn near unhittable when thrown correctly.

[marklmw]

To me it has always been a good fastball, solid curve, or slerve, and definitely a damn good change-up. Your overhand curve is sometimes very hard to throw for strikes and there is the risk of balls bouncing in the dirt and even an umpire missing the break exactly. The slerve is a modified curve thrown three-quarters overhand, easy to teach and easier to control and works amazingly well as an out pitch. As for the change, there is nothing that throws a batter's timing off more than an effective change-up. My pitchers on the teams I coached really improved their game when I suddenly stopped being stubborn and listened to a friend to insisted I teach that pitch. I became deeply in love with that pitch-----but know when to throw it and keep it down if you can.

I might be wrong on this but I noticed that Lester had begun using his change more in the 2nd half of the season and the results are obvious. The change is my favorite pitch but I caution using it against a talent like Longoria with 2 outs and runners on 2nd and 3rd.

[seabeachfred]

I might be wrong on this but I noticed that Lester had begun using his change more in the 2nd half of the season and the results are obvious. The change is my favorite pitch but I caution using it against a talent like Longoria with 2 outs and runners on 2nd and 3rd.

How come I winced like hell when I read your last sentence. I still am enraged over that call to pitch to him in that situation. Live and learn, right Farrell?