Hairyducked Idiot

No, it wouldn't. History has shown us that the best high-leverage relievers usually end up with roughly the same value contributed as the best starters. That's both wildly wrong and missing the point. I don't have a four-run example easily available, but there was a perfect three-run example last night. Let's say a pitcher comes in to start the top of an inning with a tie game and allows three runs. If that inning was the first, that pitcher has taken his team from a 50% chance to win the game to a 19.8% chance to win the game, using historical results. He's cost his team .302 of a win. If that inning was the ninth, that pitcher has taken his team from a 50% chance to win to a 1.9% chance to win, costing his team .481 of a win. His team has 1/6th the chance of winning that it did before. If we talk about the difference between a shutout inning and giving up a single run, the difference is even more dramatic. A pitcher comes into the top of the inning with the game tied. If he pitches a shutout inning, then his team now has a 55% chance to win the game if that inning was the first, and a 64.6% chance if that inning was the 9th. If he allows exactly one run, that team now has a 42.5% chance of winning if it was the first, and a 12.1% chance to win if it was the ninth. Top of first, tied: Zero runs = 55% chance of winning, one run = 42.5% chance of winning. Top of ninth, tied: Zero runs = 64.6% chance of winning, one run = 12.1% chance of winning. Clearly, the ninth is wildly more important. All innings are not created equal. Starters do pitch, on average, in more close situations than relievers. That does not refute that Carlos Marmol's innings are just as important as a starter's in sum for two reasons. One, close is only half the equation of importance. Lateness is the other. And second, Marmol doesn't have the usage pattern of an average reliever. He has the usage pattern of a reliever targeted for use in close games.

4 runs is a poor cutoff? Is 3 that much better? And, you're right, lateness matters. A 4-run lead earlier in the game is much less "safe" than a 4-run lead late. So if Marmol pitches in a 4-run game in the 8th, we're much more likely to have already won or lost before he comes in, than if we're up or down 4 in the 2nd. Which is a good reason not to use Marmol in a four-run game. A starter cannot be directed to pitch important innings. He's going to go out there on his turn and pitch as many innings as he can, regardless of score. A reliever can be targeted to either high-leverage (if he's great) or low-leverage (if he's not) situations. Instead of using a specific number as a cutoff of importance, let's use leverage index, which measures the average importance of the pitcher's exact and actual appearances. Marmol's leverage index is 1.89. His innings are almost twice as important as average innings. If Piniella wasn't a ninny and used him in a few blowouts, it'd be well over 2.

OK, splits from THIS year, then: Marquis has pitched to 822 batters, 810 of which were when the game was within 4 runs. Marmol has pitched to 393 batters, 379 of which were when the game was within 4 runs. And this is with Marmol being overused at a rate he can't possibly keep up as a reliever, and Marquis being basically god-awful as a starter. Marquis has pitched in more "close" situations than Marmol, at a more frequent rate. Marmol is equally valuable as Zambrano, but he's only getting 1/3 of the innings to be that valuable. Four runs is a poor cutoff, and you aren't accounting for the lateness of the innings as well. Four runs in the first is different from four runs in the ninth. Again, instead of speaking in generalities, why not use leverage index? And you don't seem to understand what "valuable" means in that context. WRXL and SNLVAR aren't rate stats. It isn't "this valuable per appearance." It's total value contributed. The reason he can be as valuable while pitching fewer innings it that he is more productive as a reliever than he would be as a starter (he's not maintaining a sub 2.00 ERA in the rotation) and that his innings to this point have been 89% more likely to influence the outcome of a game than average innings. He should be pitching fewer relief innings, to be sure, but that's because he's had some pointless blowout innings padded on to his stats. Almost all of his value has come outside those innings.

I'm less worried about the one-run games than I am the ties, but your point in general is still wrong. No matter who the starter is, there are going to be some high-leverage innings at the end and some low-leverage innings at the end. Every inning is not crucial. There are many innings that aren't crucial at all. Toward the beginning of the game, innings are of approximately average crucialness. As the game goes along, the crucialness varies wildly. While the first inning is usual pretty average, the ninth inning can be incredibly crucial or incredibly pointless. There are enough highly crucial innings at the end of games for there to be one or two relief pitchers on the team who are of just as much importance as starters pitching roughly twice as many raw total innings. Instead of speaking in vague, pointless generalities like my first paragraph above or this: "For every slim 2-1 8th inning lead that needs to be held down, there's a game that slipped away in the early innings due to shoddy starting pitching." We can quite precisely measure the relative odds of a start or a relief appearance deciding who wins the game. That is what SNLVAR and WRXL do. They measure the odds of the team winning (based on relative score, baserunners, inning and outs) before and after the pitcher pitched, and credit or debit him with the difference. And Marmol has come up just as valuable as Zambrano, and moreso than Dempster or anyone else in the rotation. Given that most pitchers improve their performance when going to relief, and that Marmol's performance improved dramatically in relief, and that his value to the team is statistically at least as good as any ace, it'd be lunacy to convert him to starting.

Wow, if that's not extremely arbitrary and dishonest. Marquis faced 2920 batters last year. 2905 of them were when the game was within 4 runs. Marmol faced 780 batters last year. 742 of them were when the game was within 4 runs. So, actually, Marmol faced more situations where the game was essentially already decided. That was last year. Marmol was not a high-leverage reliever all of last season. The choice wasn't "random relief innings" vs. "starting innings." It was 'high-leverage reliever' vs. 'starter.' The WRXL stats I posted account perfectly for the importance of the inning using score and lateness, and they show Marmol being equally valuable with Zambrano, the Cubs' best starter.

Although obviously there are no guarantees, I think fans in general underestimate how quickly a game can be "over." Once a team has a four-run lead or greater, or even a three-run lead in the later innings, or a two-run lead in the ninth, they are almost certainly going to win. There will be occassional comebacks, but for the most part the game is in the bag and it doesn't matter who is pitching. These are worthless, dead innings, but they still need to be thrown. Starters throw a lot of them. Cubs pitchers have faced 2028 plate appearances this season, and 28% of them came when the game was not within three runs one way or the other. To be specific, 526 of them did. Marmol has faced 125 batters, only 24 came when the game was not within 3 runs, just 19%. And his innings are generally later in the game, too, where the value of closeness is further multiplied. The importance of a pitcher's innings can be summed up in leverage index. Marmol's innings have had a leverage of 1.89, nearly twice as important as run-of-the-mill innings.

I'm completely taking that into account. You are not account that not all innings are created equal. There are two sets of innings to be thrown: 90 innings, all late in games, most of them in very close games where a run either way is the deciding factor in a win. 200 innnings, a large chunk of which come in games that are not within three runs and essentially already decided. Those two innings packages are of roughly equal value, and I'd rather have Marmol pitching the 90 and Marquis pitching the 200.

If Hill ever gets back to 2007-level performance, this feeling of yours is a problem with your perception, not what's happening on the baseball field. The Cubs were 18-16 in games Zambrano pitched last season, and 17-15 in games Hill pitched.

Marmol in his career as a starter - meh. Marmol in his career as a reliever - ridiculoawesome. Shrug. ] This. Plus: Marmol's Expected Wins Added Above Replacement: 2.516, second in all of baseball behind Brad Lidge. Support Neutral Win-Loss Above Replacement (essentially the equivalent stat for a starter): Zambrano: 2.6, Dempster: 1.8. A high-leverage reliever is every bit as valuable as an ace starter.

I could live with the overrated defensively part, and even the adulation of the Giambi play, it's the faceplant that gets me. He caught the ball, had plenty of time to stop, instead chose to take three running steps and faceplant on purpose. That's not even Edmonds making a routine play into a dive. That's like if Edmonds made the catch standing up, then dove on the ground.

Coincedence that the Yankees stopped winning WS right as he became a regular player? I think not.

The pitcher allowed a high fly ball of medium depth. Good result, though it could have easily been right down the line or in the gap and maybe had a chance to drop as well. The whole "earned run/unearned run" and "hit/error" dymanic is antiquated and should be done away with.

I'd make him find his own transportation back to Chicago if the Cubs lose this game. I'm not kidding. I'd make him invent a time machine so that Hendry could be forced to put more thought into the decision to sign him. "Drrr....best player on the market must get monster deal" isn't cutting it.

It apparently only takes one sun to defeat him.

Watch Marmol get hurt in the freak injury during an inning he needn't have pitched.

Stupidity breeds losses. Sometimes in ways you don't expect, but in the end it gets you. Signing Soriano to that deal was stupid. You couldn't expect him to lose his legs and ability to play the outfield, but in the end stupidity finds a way to get you.

After he costs us two games? Too late...

I'm still laughing at him.

But the cards are already winning. I'm conceding the division. We play for the WC :)

Were his sunglasses flipped down? I'd have to force myself to watch a replay to tell.

This is now the first first-place team to make me want to invoke the "fun bad" provision whereby I enjoy their losses.

Soriano camped under the game-ending fly ball and Brant Browned it. Dead dog dropped it.

Yep, he does. Of course, Soriano gets more momentum toward the undying hate of Cubs fans, which is probably worse.

My fault. I said "Cubs win" as the ball was falling toward Soriano.

According to this, we've only lost one of Wood's blown save this season. Though I'm tempting fate by typing this while the Pirates are still up http://www.baseball-reference.com/pi/gl.cgi?n1=woodke02&t=p