Coming in to this season, Papelbon had finished 38 games in which he pitched 1.1 or more innings, 35 since becoming a "closer". That's basically 6 a season. If you can't use him in the 8th inning of a 12-9 game where the go ahead run is batting every once in a while, there's really no point in paying him that kind of money.

Papelbon had pitched the previous two days before that Atlanta game. The Sox fanatically avoided using him the consecutive days in recent years.

IIRC, Papelbon in hist time in Boston had one of the highest LI in the last decade. Francona used him well.

Francona used him well.

A lot better than Manuel for sure. There was a little tie game on the road idiocy, and a long stretch last year in August and September when he was little used and should have taken some (ultimatly crucial) high-leverage innings...but overall, yeah.

I don't think every manager shies away from using the closer in the 9th on the road in a tie game; that's not as firm a part of the orthodoxy as never using your closer in earlier innings.

I think there's a practical problem in the "let him pitch in ties and earlier innings" theory.

If you do that, in a league where no one else does it, you'll quickly find that the other managers have started using it on YOU, but only you. So your closer keeps getting eaten up by tie after tie, whereas the other teams only do that in the few games they see you. Then your closer has arm trouble in September. - Brock Hanke

If you do that, in a league where no one else does it, you'll quickly find that the other managers have started using it on YOU, but only you. So your closer keeps getting eaten up by tie after tie, whereas the other teams only do that in the few games they see you. Then your closer has arm trouble in September. - Brock Hanke

This doesn't make logical sense to me. Keeping your closer on the bench for a week at a time is optimal when you won't burn his arm out pitching him a tie when he's well rested? And I doubt that pitching an inning and a half is substantially more stressful on his arm than pitching a single inning.

The Phillies continually seem to a dumb organization. I understand how unhappy an underpaid "closer" approaching free agency can be if you use him in non-save roles, you would be denying him the opportunity to maximize his free agency payday. But when you overpay a reliever in free agency, you should only do it with the understanding that in exchange for the big payday he's going to be a Fireman, not just a Closer.

The troubling part about that excerpt is that Manuel defends his choice based on tradition, on what he's "supposed" to do.

But of course closers make non-save appearances all the time. Last year Phillies' closer Ryan Madson had 62 games, 46 GF and only 32 saves and just 2 losses and I think just 2 blown saves (one of which resulted in one of those losses). 7 of his appearances seem to have been before he became the closer. So 55 closer appearances, 34 for saves, that's about 60%. Looking at the game logs, it's strictly by the book -- given an inning if he hasn't pitched in 3-4 days and used in tie games only at home when no save situation can exist.

Papelbon had 63 games, 54 GF, 31 saves, 3 BS, so that's 34 in 63 which is below 60%. He doesn't seem to have been used in tie games on the road until Sept -- Sept 5 at Toronto where he pitched a scoreless 10th but the Sox lost in 11 and Sept 10th at TB where he pitched a scoreless 9th and 10th but the Sox lost in 11. They used Wheeler (5th) and Bard (10th) to pitch those 11th innings so they weren't cases where Papelbon was the last decent reliever left.

Papelbon had pitched the previous two days before that Atlanta game.

The day before, he pitched the top of the ninth at home with a two-run lead, facing Eric Hinske, Jack Wilson and Michael Bourn. The day before that, he also pitched the top of the ninth at home with a two-run lead, facing Geovany Soto, Darwin Barney, David DeJesus and Tony Campana. He threw 10 and 16 pitches, respectively.

That is idiotic.

At the moment, Papelbon has appeared in one less game thus far in 2012 that was the case at this time last year. His aLI was also abnormally low at this point in 2011 because the Red Sox had started poorly enough that there simply weren't the usual mix of +1 leverage situations for him to inherit. That's also been the case this year with the Phils.

aLI is a slippery stat, because it's subject to some distortions depending on the exact nature of the outcome in each appearance. It "rewards" a reliever who either comes in facing a lot of trouble--or one who creates it while on the mound but escapes it (either on his own or via subsequent assistance). aLI goes through the roof when a pitcher comes into a tie game, loads the bases, but manages to escape unscathed; the aLI measure will be more than double what it would be if the pitcher comes in and simply retires the side 1-2-3. So an aLI average needs to be taken with a grain of salt.

In 2011, Papelbon was used on consecutive days a total of 13 times. He was used three days in a row once. In 2010, those figures were 16 and one, respectively. In 2009, 9 and zero, respectively. In 2008, 17 and three. In 2007, 7 and one. So, over five years, Francona brought him in for three consecutive games a total of six times--or about once a year, on average.

It looks as though the Phils could have used Papelbon in four situations (all on the road...) where the game was tied this year--April 7 and 8 against the Pirates, April 18 against the Giants, and the May 2 game against the Braves. I agree with Brock that it shades toward potential overwork if the "closer" gets stretched to cover all these situations...you're adding 35% more appearances over the course of the year if you bring Papelbon in for all of these. However, there was no real reason why he couldn't have been used in one of the games against the Pirates and the game against the Giants--this wouldn't have overworked him. May 2 would probably have been pushing it--not only three in a row, but four of the last five.

The Phillies continually seem to a dumb organization.

I'd hate to see what kind of success a smart organization would have had.

I'd hate to see what kind of success a smart organization would have had.

I said in 2008 that Charlie's success would set back SABR thinking somewhat.

It looks as though the Phils could have used Papelbon in four situations (all on the road...) where the game was tied this year--April 7 and 8 against the Pirates, April 18 against the Giants, and the May 2 game against the Braves. I agree with Brock that it shades toward potential overwork if the "closer" gets stretched to cover all these situations...you're adding 35% more appearances over the course of the year if you bring Papelbon in for all of these. However, there was no real reason why he couldn't have been used in one of the games against the Pirates and the game against the Giants--this wouldn't have overworked him. May 2 would probably have been pushing it--not only three in a row, but four of the last five.

But the point is he doesn't need to be pitching in all these save situations. Using him against replacement-level hitters for 10 pitches with a two-run lead is a waste of an appearance.