By Jonny German
I discovered this site about a week ago and I’m liking it a lot... I want to pick up on a thought by Matthew Elmslie from Jan. 20:
... you can fake a bullpen. Any competent GM should be able to take a shoebox of cigarette butts and paper clips and put together a reasonable relief pitching corps. I've read quite a few comments on this or that board from people who are worried about the Toronto bullpen, and I just don't see it. The Jays have a big stack of plausible arms behind Escobar and Politte and that's really all you need....
I’d had the same suspicion as Matt, and I did a little research on it. First, I adopted a very simple definition of a “good” season for a reliever: 30 or more relief appearances and an ERA under 4.00. (This definition of good will serve throughout my discourse). Next, not having any convenient source of spreadsheet-ready stats, I spent a couple hours scouring ESPN.com for pitchers who met this criteria last year. I kept track of Games (in relief), Innings, Saves, Holds, ERA, Age, Seasons as a reliever (30 or more appearances), and number of “Good” seasons.
A nice round total of 100 players made my little club: 41 from the AL, 59 from the NL. Average age was 30.53. 22 had 20 or more saves and 28 had 15 or more holds. This gives us another nice round total – 50, whom we can presume were recognized by their managers as being important pieces of their bullpens.
The teams with the most and least were no surprise: what was surprising was how extreme their extremes were. Tampa Bay had no good relievers. That’s zed-oh, zero. Atlanta, at the other end of the horse, had seven (7!) good relievers. Some teams don’t even have seven bodies in their bullpen!
Jesse Orosco was king of the hill with 17 good seasons as a reliever, out of 20 total. This was a mere 6 more good seasons than runner-up Mike Jackson. Senor Orosco has averaged less than an inning per appearance for 11 straight seasons now.
Most overrated reliever? Once again, no surprise: Mike Stanton (now of the New York Mets... are there no surprises here?). For the low low price of $3M large, Mike might give you a good season, or he might not. Over 12 seasons, he’s managed 6 good ones. “But those numbers are skewed by poor seasons earlier in his career”, you say? Nope... by the measures of this study, he’s pitching .400 over the last 5 years.
And now at length we reach the real point, which was to gain some insight into the question of good relievers, and ergo good bullpens. Do they grow on trees? Of the 100 pitchers who qualified as having a good 2002 out of the ‘pen, 40% were pitching their first or second season of relief (I remind you of my definition, a season in relief is 30 or more relief appearances). Being intelligent folks, you don’t need me to tell you that that’s a huge number with big ramifications. But it’s my post so I get to say it.
Number: Huge.
Ramifications: Big.
There’s more: of those other 60 pitchers, the guys with 3 or more relief seasons, only 30 delivered a good season more than 67% of the time. (I chose 67% for two reasons: (1) If I’m a GM signing a reliever to a 7 figure contract, I want more than 67% confidence he’s going to perform decently. (2) There were 14 guys who were good 2/3 of the time and I wanted to use them in favour of my point).
Summing up these last two paragraphs: out of 100 relievers who pitched well last year, only 30 have a reliable track record as good relievers.
What’s a GM to do? Gather 4-A starters and make them major league relievers. Invite re-tread major league starters to spring training and let them win bullpen jobs near minimum salary. Stockpile your AAA team with these characters, and switch ‘em up every couple years or months as performance dictates. Don’t spend more than $1.5M on a reliever, any reliever. Trade your arbitration-eligible relievers to Texas and Baltimore and New York for prospects.
Who has clued in to this? We’d like to think our man JP has, but that remains TBD... last year the Jays had only two relievers who qualified as “good”. What’s more, one of them was the dearly departed Felix Heredia, turning in his first good relief season out of six total. Billy Beane? Our survey says “negative”. Without having JP’s excuse of having freshly taken over, Billy was also only able to put 2 good relievers out there. And he had to spend $2.35M on Billy Koch to make it plural.
Nope, the answer to the question of who is on to these numbers is our first big surprise: Milwaukee. That’s right, Bud’s boys. For the tidy sum of $2.313M, the Brewers fielded 5 relievers with ERAs under 3.13. And that’s including $1.4M to Mike DeJean alone. So what’ll it be for your $2.313M, these five or 2 months of John Smoltz?
‘nuff said. Good night.
I discovered this site about a week ago and I’m liking it a lot... I want to pick up on a thought by Matthew Elmslie from Jan. 20:
... you can fake a bullpen. Any competent GM should be able to take a shoebox of cigarette butts and paper clips and put together a reasonable relief pitching corps. I've read quite a few comments on this or that board from people who are worried about the Toronto bullpen, and I just don't see it. The Jays have a big stack of plausible arms behind Escobar and Politte and that's really all you need....
I’d had the same suspicion as Matt, and I did a little research on it. First, I adopted a very simple definition of a “good” season for a reliever: 30 or more relief appearances and an ERA under 4.00. (This definition of good will serve throughout my discourse). Next, not having any convenient source of spreadsheet-ready stats, I spent a couple hours scouring ESPN.com for pitchers who met this criteria last year. I kept track of Games (in relief), Innings, Saves, Holds, ERA, Age, Seasons as a reliever (30 or more appearances), and number of “Good” seasons.
A nice round total of 100 players made my little club: 41 from the AL, 59 from the NL. Average age was 30.53. 22 had 20 or more saves and 28 had 15 or more holds. This gives us another nice round total – 50, whom we can presume were recognized by their managers as being important pieces of their bullpens.
The teams with the most and least were no surprise: what was surprising was how extreme their extremes were. Tampa Bay had no good relievers. That’s zed-oh, zero. Atlanta, at the other end of the horse, had seven (7!) good relievers. Some teams don’t even have seven bodies in their bullpen!
Jesse Orosco was king of the hill with 17 good seasons as a reliever, out of 20 total. This was a mere 6 more good seasons than runner-up Mike Jackson. Senor Orosco has averaged less than an inning per appearance for 11 straight seasons now.
Most overrated reliever? Once again, no surprise: Mike Stanton (now of the New York Mets... are there no surprises here?). For the low low price of $3M large, Mike might give you a good season, or he might not. Over 12 seasons, he’s managed 6 good ones. “But those numbers are skewed by poor seasons earlier in his career”, you say? Nope... by the measures of this study, he’s pitching .400 over the last 5 years.
And now at length we reach the real point, which was to gain some insight into the question of good relievers, and ergo good bullpens. Do they grow on trees? Of the 100 pitchers who qualified as having a good 2002 out of the ‘pen, 40% were pitching their first or second season of relief (I remind you of my definition, a season in relief is 30 or more relief appearances). Being intelligent folks, you don’t need me to tell you that that’s a huge number with big ramifications. But it’s my post so I get to say it.
Number: Huge.
Ramifications: Big.
There’s more: of those other 60 pitchers, the guys with 3 or more relief seasons, only 30 delivered a good season more than 67% of the time. (I chose 67% for two reasons: (1) If I’m a GM signing a reliever to a 7 figure contract, I want more than 67% confidence he’s going to perform decently. (2) There were 14 guys who were good 2/3 of the time and I wanted to use them in favour of my point).
Summing up these last two paragraphs: out of 100 relievers who pitched well last year, only 30 have a reliable track record as good relievers.
What’s a GM to do? Gather 4-A starters and make them major league relievers. Invite re-tread major league starters to spring training and let them win bullpen jobs near minimum salary. Stockpile your AAA team with these characters, and switch ‘em up every couple years or months as performance dictates. Don’t spend more than $1.5M on a reliever, any reliever. Trade your arbitration-eligible relievers to Texas and Baltimore and New York for prospects.
Who has clued in to this? We’d like to think our man JP has, but that remains TBD... last year the Jays had only two relievers who qualified as “good”. What’s more, one of them was the dearly departed Felix Heredia, turning in his first good relief season out of six total. Billy Beane? Our survey says “negative”. Without having JP’s excuse of having freshly taken over, Billy was also only able to put 2 good relievers out there. And he had to spend $2.35M on Billy Koch to make it plural.
Nope, the answer to the question of who is on to these numbers is our first big surprise: Milwaukee. That’s right, Bud’s boys. For the tidy sum of $2.313M, the Brewers fielded 5 relievers with ERAs under 3.13. And that’s including $1.4M to Mike DeJean alone. So what’ll it be for your $2.313M, these five or 2 months of John Smoltz?
‘nuff said. Good night.
Player 2002 Team Lg G IP SV Holds ERA Age Yrs Good Good %
Orosco, Jesse Los Angeles N 56 27.0 1 17 3.00 45 20 17 85%
Jackson, Mike Minnesota A 58 55.0 0 20 3.27 38 15 11 73%
Hoffman, Trevor San Diego N 61 59.1 38 0 2.73 35 10 10 100%
Nen, Robb San Francisco N 68 73.2 43 0 2.20 33 9 9 100%
Rivera, M. NY Yankees A 45 46.0 28 2 2.74 33 7 7 100%
Percival, Troy Anaheim A 58 56.1 40 0 1.92 33 8 7 88%
Veres, Dave St. Louis N 71 82.2 4 16 3.48 36 9 7 78%
Nelson, Jeff Seattle A 41 45.2 2 12 3.94 36 10 7 70%
Timlin, Mike Philadelphia N 72 96.2 0 20 2.98 36 11 7 64%
Urbina, Ugueth Boston A 61 60.0 40 0 3.00 28 6 6 100%
Wagner, Billy Houston N 70 75.0 35 0 2.52 31 6 6 100%
Shuey, Paul Cleveland A 39 37.1 0 12 2.41 32 7 6 86%
Benitez, A. NY Mets N 62 67.1 33 0 2.27 30 7 6 86%
Quantrill, P. Los Angeles N 86 76.2 1 33 2.70 34 8 6 75%
Holmes, Darren Atlanta N 55 54.2 1 7 1.81 36 9 6 67%
Mesa, Jose Philadelphia N 74 75.2 45 0 2.97 36 9 6 67%
Reed, Steve San Diego N 64 67.0 1 17 2.02 36 10 6 60%
Stanton, Mike NY Yankees A 79 78.0 6 17 3.00 35 12 6 50%
Kline, Steve St. Louis N 66 58.1 6 21 3.39 30 6 5 83%
Osuna, Antonio Chi.Sox A 59 67.2 11 9 3.86 29 6 5 83%
Cook, Dennis Anaheim A 37 24.0 0 7 3.38 40 9 5 56%
Remlinger, M. Atlanta N 73 68.0 0 30 1.99 36 4 4 100%
Karsay, Steve NY Yankees A 78 88.1 12 14 3.26 30 4 4 100%
Ligtenberg, K. Atlanta N 52 66.2 0 2 2.97 31 4 4 100%
Foulke, Keith Chi.Sox A 65 77.2 11 8 2.90 30 5 4 80%
Williams, Mike Pittsburgh N 59 31.1 46 0 2.93 34 5 4 80%
Graves, Danny Cincinnati N 64 79.2 32 0 3.50 29 5 4 80%
Rhodes, Arthur Seattle A 66 69.2 2 27 2.33 33 6 4 67%
Powell, Jay Texas A 51 49.2 0 12 3.44 31 6 4 67%
Hasegawa, S. Seattle A 53 70.1 1 8 3.20 34 6 4 67%
DeJean, Mike Milwaukee N 68 75.0 27 0 3.12 32 6 4 67%
Worrell, Tim San Francisco N 80 72.0 0 23 2.25 35 7 4 57%
Guardado, E. Minnesota A 68 67.2 45 0 2.93 32 8 4 50%
Groom, Buddy Baltimore A 70 62.0 2 19 1.60 37 9 4 44%
Gurthrie, Mark NY Mets N 68 48.0 1 17 2.44 37 10 4 40%
Stickland, S. NY Mets N 68 67.2 2 15 3.59 26 3 3 100%
King, Ray Milwaukee N 76 65.0 0 15 3.05 29 3 3 100%
Williamson, S. Cincinnati N 63 74.0 8 8 2.92 26 3 3 100%
Sasaki, Kaz Seattle A 61 60.2 37 0 2.52 34 3 3 100%
Isringhausen, J. St. Louis N 60 65.1 32 0 2.48 30 3 3 100%
Boehringer, B. Pittsburgh N 70 79.2 1 28 3.39 33 4 3 75%
Looper, Braden Florida N 78 86.0 13 16 3.14 28 4 3 75%
Grimsley, J. Kansas City A 70 71.1 1 13 3.91 35 4 3 75%
Koch, Billy Oakland A 84 93.2 44 0 3.27 28 4 3 75%
Acevedo, Juan Detroit A 65 74.2 28 1 2.65 32 5 3 60%
Embree, Alan San Diego N 68 62.0 2 28 2.03 33 6 3 50%
Weathers, David NY Mets N 71 77.1 0 18 2.91 33 6 3 50%
Bradford, Chad Oakland A 75 75.1 2 24 3.11 28 2 2 100%
Stewart, Scott Montreal N 67 64.0 17 14 3.09 27 2 2 100%
Carrara, G. Los Angeles N 63 90.2 1 14 3.28 34 2 2 100%
Lincoln, Mike Pittsburgh N 55 72.1 0 11 3.11 27 2 2 100%
Witasick, Jay San Francisco N 44 68.1 0 4 2.37 30 2 2 100%
Matthews, Mike St. Louis N 43 41.2 0 4 3.89 29 2 2 100%
Smoltz, John Atlanta N 75 80.1 55 0 3.25 35 2 2 100%
Dotel, Octavio Houston N 83 97.1 6 31 1.85 29 3 2 67%
Weber, Ben Anaheim A 63 78.0 7 18 2.54 33 3 2 67%
Hawkins, L. Minnesota A 65 80.1 0 13 2.13 30 3 2 67%
Mendoza, R. NY Yankees A 62 91.2 4 12 3.44 30 3 2 67%
Nunez, V. Florida N 77 97.2 20 11 3.41 27 3 2 67%
Wunsch, Kelly Chi.Sox A 50 31.2 0 9 3.41 30 3 2 67%
Jimenez, Jose Colorado N 74 73.1 41 0 3.56 29 3 2 67%
Kim, B. Arizona N 72 84.0 36 0 2.04 24 3 2 67%
Sauerbeck, S. Pittsburgh N 78 62.2 0 28 2.30 31 4 2 50%
Pote, Lou Anaheim A 31 50.1 0 1 3.22 31 4 2 50%
White, Gabe Cincinnati N 62 54.1 0 19 2.98 31 5 2 40%
Romero, J.C. Minnesota A 81 81.0 1 33 1.89 26 1 1 100%
Politte, Cliff Toronto A 55 57.1 1 25 3.61 28 1 1 100%
Hammond, Chris Atlanta N 63 76.0 0 17 0.95 37 1 1 100%
Marte, Damaso Chi.Sox A 68 60.1 10 14 2.83 27 1 1 100%
Donnelly, B. Anaheim A 46 49.2 1 13 2.17 31 1 1 100%
Borowski, Joe Chi. Cubs N 73 95.2 2 12 2.73 31 1 1 100%
Stone, Ricky Houston N 78 77.1 1 12 3.61 27 1 1 100%
Bauer, Rick Baltimore A 56 83.2 1 12 3.98 26 1 1 100%
Spooneybarger, T. Atlanta N 51 51.1 1 11 2.63 23 1 1 100%
Gryboski, K. Atlanta N 57 51.2 0 11 3.48 29 1 1 100%
Koplove, Mike Arizona N 55 61.2 0 10 3.36 26 1 1 100%
Villafuerte, B. San Diego N 31 32.0 1 8 1.41 27 1 1 100%
Silva, Carlos Philadelphia N 68 84.0 1 8 3.21 23 1 1 100%
Riedling, John Cincinnati N 33 46.2 0 8 2.70 27 1 1 100%
Mullen, Scott Kansas City A 44 40.0 0 6 3.15 28 1 1 100%
Crudale, Mike St. Louis N 49 52.2 0 6 1.88 26 1 1 100%
Fiore, T. Minnesota A 46 80.2 0 5 2.79 31 1 1 100%
Zerbe, Chad San Francisco N 50 56.1 0 5 3.04 30 1 1 100%
Cerda, Jaime NY Mets N 32 25.2 0 4 2.45 24 1 1 100%
Durocher, J. Milwaukee N 39 48.0 0 3 1.88 28 1 1 100%
Smith, Dan Montreal N 33 46.2 2 2 3.47 27 1 1 100%
Neal, Blaine Florida N 32 33.0 0 2 2.73 24 1 1 100%
Gagne, Eric Los Angeles N 77 82.1 52 1 1.97 27 1 1 100%
Julio, Jorge Baltimore A 67 68.0 25 1 1.99 23 1 1 100%
Fossum, Casey Boston A 31 40.0 3 1 3.15 25 1 1 100%
Roberts, Grant NY Mets N 34 45.0 0 0 2.20 25 1 1 100%
Vizcaino, Luis Milwaukee N 76 81.1 5 19 2.99 28 2 1 50%
Roberts, W Baltimore A 66 75.0 1 13 3.36 27 2 1 50%
Eischen, Joey Montreal N 59 53.2 2 11 1.34 32 2 1 50%
de los Santos, V. Milwaukee N 51 57.2 0 7 3.12 30 2 1 50%
Santana, Julio Detroit A 38 57.0 0 7 2.84 28 2 1 50%
Walker, Jamie Detroit A 57 43.2 1 5 3.71 31 2 1 50%
Cordero, F. Texas A 39 45.1 10 1 1.79 27 2 1 50%
Heredia, Felix Toronto A 53 52.1 0 7 3.61 27 6 1 17%
