Saber-fan or not, the bottom line: having good pitchers is sort of the key to having an effective bullpen. The key to any arrangement of A's relievers, it appears, is whether or not Ryan Cook is a lockdown guy.

The problem is that they don't have a "lockdown guy". They've really got no choice but to go with matchups. The author says Cook has been "by far the A's best reliever", but he's walking 15% of his batters. That's more than Henry Rodriguez's lifetime number. By SIERA and xFIP-, Cook's been worse than Fuentes, Jerry Blevins and Jim Miller. Obviously SSS, but if Melvin is basing his decision on 2012 performance, there's no clear winner.

By SIERA and xFIP-, Cook's been worse than Fuentes, Jerry Blevins and Jim Miller.

That's because those numbers are based on what Cook should have done, not what he has actually done. So they correct his hit rate and ERA to where they think it should be. Now, those numbers have great predictive value, but I don't like the way some of them try to re-write history. When you look at his numbers, you see that he's only given up 7 hits in 26 innings. Insanely low. Champman-esque. Most likely unsustainable over the course of the season. But it's proof that he has been pitching very well this season. Blevins, Miller, and Fuentes may have the better Sabremetric numbers, but Cook has been getting results on the field.

Why after all these years are we still using 'closer by committee' instead of 'we don't have a relief ace'?

closer by committee

Beane needs to hire Frank Luntz.

When you look at Cook's numbers, you see that he's walked 15 in 26 innings. Insanely high. Rodriguez-esque. Most likely sustainable over the course of the season. But it's proof that he has not been pitching very well this season. Blevins, Miller and Fuentes may have the better Sabermetric numbers, but Cook has been getting lucky on the field.

Bullpen evaluation, not including Cook--not enough data on Cook

Blevins has cut his walks from last year, but his walk rate is still a lot higher in MLB than it is in AAA--assuming far more patient hitters in MLB than PCL, his stuff really didn't change from the few times I watched video of him pitching for Sacramento last year. The problem with Blevins is that he allows loads of fly balls.

Onto Balfour: His BB/9 is also up. Thankfully, not as bad as it was in 2007 (nothing is that bad) but still, not as good. Balfour's K/9, unfortunately, has dropped every year since 2008.

Balfour and Blevins seem to be indistinguishable from each other, except for the handedness. Blevins used to have your typical LOOGY split but he's doing better against RHB in 2011 and 2012 than LHB and his career splits look a lot more even now. Balfour doesn't have a distinct handedness split. Really, I can't see any situation in 2012 where you'd pick Balfour over Blevins; they're the same dude.

Looking at minor league stats, Miller gives up hits like candy even in the IL. Lots of strikeouts, low walks. The current Miller usage pattern is of 6th to 8th inning in games Oakland is already losing, which is the best place to find out what an untested AAA pitcher will do.

Fuentes also saw his K/9 tank over the past few seasons but his BB/9 has also fell. He's given up a lot more HR in 2012 which is probably why the A's are avoiding him. Nothing else really stands out in his logs as the reason why he wouldn't be used. Watching the games, his demeanor on the mound when facing setbacks is kind of crap, but that's the way he's always been....

Doolittle is on a rocket path to a high-leverage role, whether closer or not.

Why after all these years are we still using 'closer by committee' instead of 'we don't have a relief ace'?

Because if you give that title, players will want to get paid for it, just like being the 'closer' today.

Why after all these years are we still using 'closer by committee' instead of 'we don't have a relief ace'?

I dunno, but based on TFE, it looks like Melvin is explicitly saying that the Athletics DO have a relief ace - Ryan Cook - which is precisely why he's going with a 'closer by committee,' so he's not locked into using his relief ace in a save situation just because he's been named The Closer. In this situation, 'closer by committee' is the PR spin on making the shift from the closer concept to the relief ace concept. One would think this community would support such a shift.

Now, those numbers have great predictive value

But that's the decision Melvin has to make. We can quibble over wording -- OK, Cook has had the best results but it's not clear he is a better pitcher than the other guys.

some of them try to re-write history

I understand the uneasiness around the way fangraphs calculates value for pitchers but they are not trying to rewrite history, they are trying to apportion value. Even after controlling for defense and quality of competition, a substantial chunk of any pitcher's performance is "random luck." Walk, double play GB to second, HR is the same pitching performance as walk, HR, easy ground ball to second but the second pitcher's stats are going to end up much worse.* One guy gives up a bloop that happens to be only 4 steps behind the SS while the other guy has it squibbed 15 feet more towards second where it falls in. Fangraphs probably goes too far in one direction (essentially saying that all such variation is random luck) but it's not like anybody knows what the right answer is. And we don't seem to have a problem with the concept that pitchers A and B pitched the same but B did so in front of a crappy defense and saying that those guys had equal value. It's not clear why we should necessarily reject the notion that they had the same value but one of them was luckier.

There is probably a case to be made asking why fangraphs has such adjustments for pitchers but doesn't (as far as I know) do so for hitters. Yes, variation in hitter BABIP is more dependent on true talent variation but, by the same logic, every hitter's observed BABIP should be regressed towards the mean.

Don't get me wrong, I prefer the Chone approach but all fangraphs is doing is treating the unexplained bits as being truly random. That's putting too much faith in the model but I suspect it's not far off the truth at this point.

What I think I'd like to see is defensive value broken down by pitcher WAR, defensive WAR and just dumb luck WAR.

* There's probably some evidence that some pitchers legitimately outperform others with men on base but you get the idea.

Why after all these years are we still using 'closer by committee' instead of 'we don't have a relief ace'?

Because it is a more positive message, for the players and for the fans/media.

"Closer by committee" - we have a number of guys we can use proactively in these situations, depending on match-ups

"We don't have a relief ace" - none of our relievers are all that good

Meanwhile, Charlie Manuel has consecutive extra inning tie games on the road and insists on using JD Rosenberg, Chad Qualls and Joe Savery instead of $50M Papelbon. Result: 0-2.

Papelbon is way too expensive and valuable an asset to use in mere tie road games. If Joe Savery's not around to lose the game immediately and take the injury to his ego so Papelbon doesn't have to, what IS he around for?