The Importance Of A Quality Bullpen

[soccer10k]

I started this thread based on the following quote:

 

and a good bullpen is what % of a complete team?

 

Now, I know that a good bullpen isn't going to win a World Series for you just by itself. You have to have a good team anyway. But I firmly believe that having a good bullpen is a key to winning. I also thing that if we had our 2006 bullpen back in 2003, that we would have had a better chance to win than we did for a few reasons.

 

1. With a good bullpen, Baker could have taken out his starters earlier in games during the year and used the pen a little more often and could have spread out the appearances more. I don't like Farnsworth, but he had a decent (not as good as 2001 though) year in 2003, but he and Borowski were the only relievers I trusted. This year I have complete faith in Dempster, Eyre, Howry, and Williamson and if Ohman can return to his 2005 form, I'll have faith in him. That's a big difference. By taking out his starters earlier during the season in 2003 that would have led to...

 

2. Wood and Prior not being drained in the NLCS. It was obvious that they had run out of gas and if you take off an inning a week, that's about 30 less innings on the season. Then maybe Wood pitches better in Game 7 than he did. And even if Wood and Prior are tired...

 

3. Dusty has faith in his bullpen and has numerous choices in the eighth inning of 2006 if he wanted to do so. Under the circumstances, I think Dusty made the right move in Game 6 by sending Prior, our ace and Cy Young candidate, out for the eighth because he was better than anyone in our bullpen. But I wouldn't hesitate to put in Howry or Eyre in that situation. But would you put Alfonseca in the game there? How about Remlinger? Absolutely not.

 

The bottom line is, I can't even count how many times our bullpen has choked away quality starts by our relievers in years past. Did Hendry make the best offensive moves in the offseason? No. But he deserves to be given his due for putting together one of the best bullpens in baseball this year and I guarantee that they will save the team numerous times this year. If we make the postseason, I don't think the bullpen will be the sole reason that happens, but I guarantee it will be a big part especially with Lee going down. Bottom line, a good pen is more valuable than one might think.

[pete the dog]

I can't believe another NSBB-er who lives in Davis. Great to know there's another fan in town.

 

BTW, I agree that it's nice to have a good bullpen. It definitely helps my blood pressure in the late innings.

[Transmogrified Tiger]

A good bullpen is better than a bad bullpen.

[soccer10k]

A good bullpen is better than a bad bullpen.

 

Very insightful.

[Transmogrified Tiger]

A good bullpen is better than a bad bullpen.

 

Very insightful.

 

It's the gist of the original post. There is some merit in the thought that it saves starters pitches, but Dusty has been given decent pens in the past and still abused his starters and relievers to oblivion.

 

Obviously a good pen is better than a bad one, but is it any more important than the difference between a good starting rotation and a bad one? A good lineup and a bad one? No, in fact it's significantly less important. It's great that our pen has been solid so far and looks to continue to be that way, but it's no different(possibly worse) than if we were more skilled in other areas and weaker in the pen.

[soccer10k]

A good bullpen is better than a bad bullpen.

 

Very insightful.

 

It's the gist of the original post. There is some merit in the thought that it saves starters pitches, but Dusty has been given decent pens in the past and still abused his starters and relievers to oblivion.

 

Obviously a good pen is better than a bad one, but is it any more important than the difference between a good starting rotation and a bad one? A good lineup and a bad one? No, in fact it's significantly less important. It's great that our pen has been solid so far and looks to continue to be that way, but it's no different(possibly worse) than if we were more skilled in other areas and weaker in the pen.

 

I may be wrong on this, but I would think it would be much more demoralizing for a team to lose a lead late and have their bullpen blow it than to just have the starter pitch horribly. As I said, I may be wrong in assuming this and either way, a loss hurts, but personally I think that if you are going to lose, it's better to just lose early than lose a heartbreaker in the end. You tend to remember those heartbreakers more, at least I do as a fan. I'll never forget a Sunday Night game in 2002 I believe against the Cardinals where we were leading 9-4 going into the ninth and the Cards scored six runs in the bottom of the ninth, capped by a no doubt Edgar Renteria 3 run homer to win 10-9. Maybe that's just me.

 

I do see your point though. My main reason for doing this was to separate the bullpen debate from the Jacque Jones thread. And I always appreciate insight from the Tiger.

[badger1679666666]

A good bullpen is better than a bad bullpen.

 

Very insightful.

 

It's the gist of the original post. There is some merit in the thought that it saves starters pitches, but Dusty has been given decent pens in the past and still abused his starters and relievers to oblivion.

 

Obviously a good pen is better than a bad one, but is it any more important than the difference between a good starting rotation and a bad one? A good lineup and a bad one? No, in fact it's significantly less important. It's great that our pen has been solid so far and looks to continue to be that way, but it's no different(possibly worse) than if we were more skilled in other areas and weaker in the pen.

 

I may be wrong on this, but I would think it would be much more demoralizing for a team to lose a lead late and have their bullpen blow it than to just have the starter pitch horribly. As I said, I may be wrong in assuming this and either way, a loss hurts, but personally I think that if you are going to lose, it's better to just lose early than lose a heartbreaker in the end. You tend to remember those heartbreakers more, at least I do as a fan. I'll never forget a Sunday Night game in 2002 I believe against the Cardinals where we were leading 9-4 going into the ninth and the Cards scored six runs in the bottom of the ninth, capped by a no doubt Edgar Renteria 3 run homer to win 10-9. Maybe that's just me.

 

I do see your point though. My main reason for doing this was to separate the bullpen debate from the Jacque Jones thread. And I always appreciate insight from the Tiger.

 

I don't think you're wrong. I think it's safe to say our loss to the Reds earlier when Rusch was crushed was much less painful than the Marlins loss to us last night.

 

And as Brinoch said the bullpen makes up 26-28% of the complete team. That's significant.

[Transmogrified Tiger]

A good bullpen is better than a bad bullpen.

 

Very insightful.

 

It's the gist of the original post. There is some merit in the thought that it saves starters pitches, but Dusty has been given decent pens in the past and still abused his starters and relievers to oblivion.

 

Obviously a good pen is better than a bad one, but is it any more important than the difference between a good starting rotation and a bad one? A good lineup and a bad one? No, in fact it's significantly less important. It's great that our pen has been solid so far and looks to continue to be that way, but it's no different(possibly worse) than if we were more skilled in other areas and weaker in the pen.

 

I may be wrong on this, but I would think it would be much more demoralizing for a team to lose a lead late and have their bullpen blow it than to just have the starter pitch horribly. As I said, I may be wrong in assuming this and either way, a loss hurts, but personally I think that if you are going to lose, it's better to just lose early than lose a heartbreaker in the end. You tend to remember those heartbreakers more, at least I do as a fan. I'll never forget a Sunday Night game in 2002 I believe against the Cardinals where we were leading 9-4 going into the ninth and the Cards scored six runs in the bottom of the ninth, capped by a no doubt Edgar Renteria 3 run homer to win 10-9. Maybe that's just me.

 

I do see your point though. My main reason for doing this was to separate the bullpen debate from the Jacque Jones thread. And I always appreciate insight from the Tiger.

 

I don't think you're wrong. I think it's safe to say our loss to the Reds earlier when Rusch was crushed was much less painful than the Marlins loss to us last night.

 

And as Brinoch said the bullpen makes up 26-28% of the complete team. That's significant.

 

A bullpen probably throws about 35% of the innings, and does a minute percentage of the fielding for the team. That means that 65% of pitching, nearly all of fielding, and all of hitting are separate from the bullpen. There's something to be said for the high leverage innings that make up that 35%, but the point is they aren't evenly distributed. A pen loss may be more devastating, but you're likely to have less of them since they compose much less of the team.

[FergieJ31]

..I'll never forget a Sunday Night game in 2002 I believe against the Cardinals where we were leading 9-4 going into the ninth and the Cards scored six runs in the bottom of the ninth, capped by a no doubt Edgar Renteria 3 run homer to win 10-9. Maybe that's just me.

 

I tend to agree ... I have a very vivid, painful memory of that game. It epitomized the 2002 season for me. I've forgotten any number of Cubs / Cards games where the Cards blew them out early, but I can't forget that game.

[Guest]

Is it more demoralizing to a team to blow a late lead or to go into a game thinking you don't have a chance because your SP sucks?

[badger1679666666]

Is it more demoralizing to a team to blow a late lead or to go into a game thinking you don't have a chance because your SP sucks?

 

They are both bad, but having played sports all my life, I disliked leading the whole game only to lose in the last few seconds more so than playing the giant with no expectations to do well.

[Transmogrified Tiger]

Is it more demoralizing to a team to blow a late lead or to go into a game thinking you don't have a chance because your SP sucks?

 

They are both bad, but having played sports all my life, I disliked leading the whole game only to lose in the last few seconds more so than playing the giant with no expectations to do well.

 

That's different than what's being talked about. Tim's talking about if your own team is bad, not if the other team is very good. To attempt to compare across sports, compare it to having a very poor goalkeeper in Soccer or hockey, not going up against a juggernaut.

Edited April 25, 2006 by Transmogrified Tiger

[Guest]

Is it more demoralizing to a team to blow a late lead or to go into a game thinking you don't have a chance because your SP sucks?

 

They are both bad, but having played sports all my life, I disliked leading the whole game only to lose in the last few seconds more so than playing the giant with no expectations to do well.

I always just got ticked off by losing a late lead and came out and played harder the next day. If I didn't think I had a chance going into a game it affected my play much more.

 

In a critical game, it may be possible to overcome a bad pen by having a SP go longer. There's no way to avoid a lousy group of starting pitchers or a horrible offense.

[cl smooth]

I can't believe another NSBB-er who lives in Davis. Great to know there's another fan in town.

 

*thread hi-jack*

 

dj shadow is from davis, california. thus, davis is cool in my book.

 

*/thread hi-jack*

[daske17]

Is it more demoralizing to a team to blow a late lead or to go into a game thinking you don't have a chance because your SP sucks?

 

I'd go with the former. If you're an everyday player and you know going in that your SP sucks, it puts more of the onus on you and the offense to carry the team. You're not relying on one person on the mound for the win.

 

However, let's say your starting pitching and offense carry you to a 5-3 lead in the seventh inning. You're feeling pretty good until the bullpen transforms the game into a 6-5 loss. That, to me, is the more demoralizing event.

[Guest]

To put this another way:

 

If you are an otherwise great team with a lousy bullpen, you are still a very good team that has a flaw.

 

If you are an otherwise great team with lousy starting pitching, you are the Reds and you lose 90 games and have no shot doing well.

[Guest]

Is it more demoralizing to a team to blow a late lead or to go into a game thinking you don't have a chance because your SP sucks?

 

I'd go with the former. If you're an everyday player and you know going in that your SP sucks, it puts more of the onus on you and the offense to carry the team. You're not relying on one person on the mound for the win.

 

However, let's say your starting pitching and offense carry you to a 5-3 lead in the seventh inning. You're feeling pretty good until the bullpen transforms the game into a 6-5 loss. That, to me, is the more demoralizing event.

You got a pretty solid effort from your lousy SP there.

 

What if you go into the game knowing you've got a real good chance at being down 8-5 by the seventh?

[daske17]

Is it more demoralizing to a team to blow a late lead or to go into a game thinking you don't have a chance because your SP sucks?

 

I'd go with the former. If you're an everyday player and you know going in that your SP sucks, it puts more of the onus on you and the offense to carry the team. You're not relying on one person on the mound for the win.

 

However, let's say your starting pitching and offense carry you to a 5-3 lead in the seventh inning. You're feeling pretty good until the bullpen transforms the game into a 6-5 loss. That, to me, is the more demoralizing event.

You got a pretty solid effort from your lousy SP there.

 

What if you go into the game knowing you've got a real good chance at being down 8-5 by the seventh?

 

I demand a trade. :lol:

[cubweiser03]

A good bullpen can give you confidence to play small ball for 2-3 innings. I hate small ball for 9 innings but some games you only need 1 run in the late innings and scratching a run across is all you need. You dont always need 3 runs late in the game to win, sometimes 1 is enough if you can hold the other team down. Keeping games close late can effect what you do with the bat.

 

Starting pitching is far better than a bullpen im not saying that, i just think a very good bullpen can change how you approach the late innings with the bat.

[FergieJ31]

This debate reminds me a little of the debate on "importance" of team speed. Speed can help turn a good team into a great team, but it can't turn a bad team into a good team. Same for a solid, dependable bullpen. The quality of the Astros pen in 2001 was the difference between 1st place and 2nd place. Houston allowed 4.75 runs per game in 2001, while Dotel and Wagner collectively allowed under 2.9 runs per game. Edited April 25, 2006 by FergieJ31

[Stu]

To put this another way:

 

If you are an otherwise great team with a lousy bullpen, you are still a very good team that has a flaw.

 

If you are an otherwise great team with lousy starting pitching, you are the Reds and you lose 90 games and have no shot doing well.

 

Speaking of which, would someone please remind them they stink so they can start losing already?

[soccer10k]

To put this another way:

 

If you are an otherwise great team with a lousy bullpen, you are still a very good team that has a flaw.

 

If you are an otherwise great team with lousy starting pitching, you are the Reds and you lose 90 games and have no shot doing well.

 

I wouldn't call the Reds "an otherwise great team." I agree with lousy starting pitching, but they don't have a bullpen. Offense is great though.