Hurry, administer the John Sterling Cooper test! Baggypants just went out the window!
The latest talk in New York, as the city shakily tries to recover from the Mariano Rivera injury, is about David Robertson and whether he has the stuff, the guts, the pluck, the spirit, the moxie, the cojones, the courage, the bravery, the backbone, the grit, the fire, the fearlessness, the toughness, the determination, the audacity, the boldness, the spine, the mettle, the heroism and the nerve to actually get batters out in the ninth inning.
You know. The toughest three outs in all of baseball.
...Whatever the reasons for this phenomenon—and I’m sure I’m missing some reasons—I’d love to create a cliche. I’d love for this cliche to be: The toughest three outs in baseball are the first three outs. it may not sound true. And it doesn’t really fill our irresistible need for clarity and finality—after all, getting the first three ours without giving up a run doesn’t mean you’re going to win or even that your likely to win. You could get the first three outs without giving up a run and still lose the game 48-1.
Still, based on the numbers, it’s a generalization but also something close to a fact. The toughest three outs are the first three outs. Sometimes the true story isn’t as much fun or as emotional as the myth. That doesn’t make it any less true.
Reader Comments and Retorts
Go to end of page
Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.
1. Bob Tufts Posted: May 21, 2012 at 03:00 PM (#4136961)Was the "stuff" that you had warming up as good as it was in the bullpen? Could you identify quickly what pitch was your best pitch at that moment (crucial when relieving)?
And much of a pitcher's confidence in their ability is established through getting by the first batter or two without any damage.
well, he found some use for part of the JoPa biography.
This would seem to be an indictment of the current policy of robotically pulling pitchers after they throw a scoreless inning because it's now the "Nth" inning, and that's the new guy's "role."
I'm pushing for the 5th, 12th and 19th outs.
Teams score more runs in the first inning than any other inning. Therefore, the three toughest outs to get are the first three outs.
I agree. I fear that the closer gets to throw the 9th only because management stupidly overpaid for their services and actually believe that one inning saves are a valid statistic.
I think the causation might be the other way sort of. The closer demands to throw the 9th because he knows that getting saves will get him more money in the future. Management doesn't want to piss him off, so they let him do it.
Getting 45 saves versus 5 (or less) definitely helps a reliever get more money, but I don't think teams would necessarily value a closer with 45 saves more than a closer who only got 35 saves because he was brought in to more tie games.
This is probably true today, but 5-10 years ago it very well may not have been. And I imagine you still see saves used in arbitration hearings.
Really? I've never heard this.
You heard incorrectly. Such provision is not permissible and would not be approved by the league. What may have led the speaker(s) astray is that some pitchers have performance awards based on number of games finished (not necessarily saved), and there is an implied requirement of good faith that a team can't not use a player just to avoid an award. However, there is clear arbitration authority that gives great deference to a team in deciding what is reasonably justifiable. If the team can state any reason that is not on its face obsurd the arbitrator will not force a team to use a player in a way to reach a performance award.
Obviously that experience is utterly useless. How dare you, a mere former major league pitcher, suggest that you have any thoughts on the matter that would contradict the learned wisdom as passed down from Buck, Sterling, et al. Tisk, tisk.
Seriously though, I really do appreciate how often you are posting here providing insight in the workings between the lines, in the clubhouses, and in the life after the game. Your presence here is a part of what makes the community as interesting as it is.
Teams score more runs in the first inning than any other inning. Therefore, the three toughest outs to get are the first three outs.
How dare you confirm a boring truth! You should have asked Brad Lidge's psychiatrist first before posting something like that.
Well, at least it's true for the Yankees. They've allowed more runs in the first inning than any other, 141% more runs on a pro-rated basis in the first inning than in the ninth, and 162% more runs in the first three innings than in innings 7 - 9. At least with the Yanks, I'd say that Joe is definitely on the right track.
Joel Finch & Jim Umbarger say "hi".
Well, that is only because of Mo.
this would have to have a large home field bias, right?
by that reasoning, the 80th would be tougher still.
For 2011, OBP by (starting) inning / out state:
Top 3
Bottom 4
IMO it's an interesting reflection of the late inning use/expectation of relievers, i.e., bringing relievers in at the start of an inning, that 2 of the easiest 4 outs to get were leading off the 9th inning and the 8th inning.
Source: B-R PI
You possibly have a bit of reverse causation going on here. You're looking at the OBP by out/state, but that assumes that the pitchers have nothing to do with the result in that at bat. Which is silly if teams are using their better pitchers to start innings or if bringing in a fresh pitcher gives the advantage (temporarily) to the pitcher, both of which I think are probably true.
However, it's also possible that the 8th and 9th inning leadoff numbers are due to the fact that you're more likely to let the pitcher (or a poor hitter/good fielder) lead off an inning in the 8th or 9th, because there's no one on base.
It would be interesting to split it out by league, as you should see less variation in the most difficult and least difficult spots.
2011, 9th inning, 0 outs:
AL: .285 OBP, 2475 PA
NL: .292 OBP, 2870 PA
2011, 1st inning, 1 out:
AL: .342 OBP, 3329 PA
NL: .333 OBP, 3755 PA
[31] However, it's also possible that the 8th and 9th inning leadoff numbers are due to the fact that you're more likely to let the pitcher (or a poor hitter/good fielder) lead off an inning in the 8th or 9th, because there's no one on base.
2011, 9th inning, 0 outs, NL:
OrderPos. PA 6th 363 7th 352 8th 343 5th 328 4th 322 1st 305 3rd 298 2nd 290 9th 269If the 9th inning is heavily weighted towards the bottom of the order (but not the 9th spot in the order), that's a structural factor due to the progression through the order during the game that should make the 9th inning easier for the reliever. But it is real.
It's stupid and inefficient to use too many relievers; it's like making yourself fight through first tee nerves and curiosity four or five times instead of one or two. Taking a guy out who "has it" and has worked up a nice lather and has acclimated himself to the conditions and the game in favor of another guy who might not have it, just because it's a certain inning, is flat out dumb.
(*) Without knowing whether the numbers back it up, a timeworn maxim is that good/great starters are more vulnerable in the first inning.
Case in point: Jon Papelbon averaged 36 saves a year in his time in Boston. Didn't seem to hurt his prospects at all on the free agent market.
Now, of course, he's being used in a more conventional manner.
One inning saves ARE a valid statistic in the media. You give up runs in the 2nd or 4th inning and go on to lose, nobody cares, that's just baseball. You lose a game in the ninth inning, and the headlines are all OMG MELTDOWN APOCALYPTIC EXPLOSION!!! Like it or not, every single ninth inning lead is now YOU BETTER WIN THIS with no margin for error. Not even Mariano Rivera was immune to this.
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
<< Back to main