Bullpen ERA's lower - Page 2

Jack of Arcades · #11 05-25-2006, 05:15 PM

why would you be trying to quantify only one aspect

prohornblower · #12 05-25-2006, 05:28 PM

If a reliever comes in with 1 out in the inning every time, and say nobody was on base when he came in, and his ERA for the season was 2.50, could we extrapolate his true ERA to be more like 3.75?

What if he only came in with 2 outs and nobody on? Would a 2.50 ERA be more like 7.50?

Jack of Arcades · #13 05-25-2006, 05:34 PM

Your point would be relevant if someone were exclusively used like that.

prohornblower · #14 05-25-2006, 05:38 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Your point would be relevant if someone were exclusively used like that.

[/ QUOTE ]

Nobody is exclusively, but occassionally they do benefit from this. Lefty "specialists" probably benefit from this more than anyone.

All relievers will at one point during the season be called on with 1 or 2 outs in an inning, therefore all relievers benefit from it.

RedBean · #15 05-25-2006, 05:52 PM

[ QUOTE ]
If a reliever comes in with 1 out in the inning every time, and say nobody was on base when he came in, and his ERA for the season was 2.50, could we extrapolate his true ERA to be more like 3.75?

What if he only came in with 2 outs and nobody on? Would a 2.50 ERA be more like 7.50?

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm confused as to what your asking here....bear with me..

You do realize that if a guy comes in and pitches a third of an inning, he only gets credit for pitching a third of an inning. The built in extrapolation occurs when his ERA is calculated. Earned Run Average per 9 innings.

If he has 27 outings where he gets 1 out, that equates to 9 innings.

-OR-

Are you already aware of that, and are looking for a quick and dirty extrapolation of his ERA to account for him not having to pitch a full inning and having the advantage of facing everyone with 2 outs?

I remember the concept that never quite caught on...but using for relievers, instead of ERA (Earned runs per 9 innings)....using IER (Innings per Earned Run), basically, on average, how many innings they go per earned run. (innings dived by earned runs)..real dirty and quick.

For example...

Tom Gordon is going about 6 innings per ER right now, and Wagner is going about 1.3 innings per ER....on Average.

The higher the better, obviously.

Or the short lived ERA per inning. Same as ERA, except instead of per nine innings, you can do it per inning, or per 3 innings.

Meh....like Jack said, 0.8 added to ERA works best.

RedBean · #16 05-25-2006, 05:56 PM

[ QUOTE ]

Nobody is exclusively, but occassionally they do benefit from this. Lefty "specialists" probably benefit from this more than anyone.

[/ QUOTE ]

It works both ways also. If the lefty specialist gives up a bomb, it's going to wreck his ERA for the next 5 or so outings.

Not to mention the starter who gets yanked with 2 outs and bases juiced is benefitting from this aspect, in a sense, albeit small, because although he is still on the hook for those 3 baserunners, the 1-out specialist is probably in a better position to get him of the hook than if he were to stay in himself.

prohornblower · #17 05-25-2006, 06:00 PM

.8 is fine, but I'm assuming that takes other factors into acccount.

RedBean, the second half of your post seems to be more in-line with what I'm thinking.

Think about it...a relief pitcher who starts an inning is far more likely to give up a run than a pitcher who comes in with one out, than a pitcher who comes in with 2 outs. This is due to the "clean slate" factor of each new inning. Ballgames are played inning to inning. The guy who comes in and only has to get 1 out to receive a clean slate is far more likely to have a lower ERA than a guy who starts an inning, and has to get 3 outs to get to his next clean slate.

prohornblower · #18 05-25-2006, 06:02 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Nobody is exclusively, but occassionally they do benefit from this. Lefty "specialists" probably benefit from this more than anyone.

[/ QUOTE ]

It works both ways also. If the lefty specialist gives up a bomb, it's going to wreck his ERA for the next 5 or so outings.

Not to mention the starter who gets yanked with 2 outs and bases juiced is benefitting from this aspect, in a sense, albeit small, because although he is still on the hook for those 3 baserunners, the 1-out specialist is probably in a better position to get him of the hook than if he were to stay in himself.

[/ QUOTE ]

Your first statement does not affect what I'm talking about.

Your second statement...that's just pure speculation.

RedBean · #19 05-25-2006, 10:04 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Your first statement does not affect what I'm talking about.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're right, I re-read that again, and your talking in a vacuum, the guy who comes in with 2 outs has an advantage over the guys with an entire inning to pitch. I see what you mean now. I agree with you on that also.

[ QUOTE ]

Your second statement...that's just pure speculation.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, of course, but lacking any other information, knowing the manager pulls him out and replaces him, he is assumed to be doing what he thinks has more EV.

Of course, that is a big assumption with some managers...lol..

prohornblower · #20 05-25-2006, 10:13 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Your first statement does not affect what I'm talking about.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're right, I re-read that again, and your talking in a vacuum, the guy who comes in with 2 outs has an advantage over the guys with an entire inning to pitch. I see what you mean now. I agree with you on that also.

[ QUOTE ]

Your second statement...that's just pure speculation.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, of course, but lacking any other information, knowing the manager pulls him out and replaces him, he is assumed to be doing what he thinks has more EV.

Of course, that is a big assumption with some managers...lol..

[/ QUOTE ]

Ehhh, I'm not a big fan of pulling a starter for a reliever in certain situations. My reason being that although what you said is likely true, you left out the disadvantage of having a "cold" pitcher come in, pitch from a new mound, and be expected to shut them down. I'm more a fan of letting the guy who got into the mess get out of it. Guess that's just old-school thinking though.

Yes, it seems that you realize what I'm talking about now. To further clarify, imagine you are a pitcher and instead of getting 3 outs in an inning, your opposition only gets 2. The likelihood that they get a run across homeplate with only 2 outs to work with is much less than if they had 3 to work with. This is the exact reason why a reliever who comes in to get 2 outs (even with inhereted runners because those don't belong to him), is less likely to give up a run than had he come in to start the inning fresh.

Picture a reliever coming in with one out and giving up a single then a double to put runners on first and third. Now he gets the next batter out to end the inning. He comes in the next inning and gives up a leadoff homer. Had he started the previous inning fresh, and assuming all results would be the same, he would have allowed 3 earned runs instead of only 1. The clean slate of starting a new inning is what makes this real.

Sorry if I am rambling on, I'm just trying to spit out examples since they are fresh in my head.