This is an example of where the data is probably not as helpful as the eye test. I've seen Jansen a few times this year and he isn't blowing batters away with his fastball and he isn't getting them to chase his breaking pitches. The outs he gets appear to be principally a matter of luck.

yes. luckily they have one already in Iglesias.

And finally, even if Jansen is going through a rough patch, is there a better place to hide him than the ninth inning?

"Hiding" someone in the ninth inning as a closer is a pretty stupid idea. Even if it was the strict turn of the millenium, save-stat-influenced role, it is still the highest leverage relief innings.

Jansen has been shaky for years. His FIP over the last 5 seasons is 3.49 -- about a 119 FIP+, goood but not great for a SP, kinda average or worse for a hi-lev reliever. He's still hard to hit it seems but the ERA is still just 3.19 and the HR rate is about 1 per 8 innings. It's been going on long enough that it's not the sort of performance you think "if he can work his way through this, we'll have a great reliever again."

Unfortunately, (a) relievers are highly variable and (b) relievers are measured only in small samples. That makes it difficult to impossible to say with much confidence that reliever B is better than reliever A. You'll be right until you aren't which could be tomorrow. But sure, when the Braves picked up Iglesias I assumed they were replacing Jansen.

Maybe it's a new nerd thing ... ERA+ of top save guys 2022:

Clase 295 (that's what I'm talking about!)
Hendricks 126 (hmmm)
Jansen 109
Romano 202 (Toronto apparently)
Hader 67
Rogers 88
Bard 228
Diaz 267
Pressly 121
Soto 109

That's a very wide range (with no middle ground (those guys are in the next tier). No guarantee these numbers are precise but

Relievers with 50+ IP by ERA+

200+: 16
150-199: 25
125-149: 23 (note that category is just 25 points wide)
110-124: 17 (that category just 15 wide)

That's 81 all-up suggesting that somewhere around 110 is where you need to be for use in the 7th or later. There are a lot of guys with 25-45 IP in that 110-149 range -- probably mostly guys who came in on the shuttle and got to stick around. Anyway, suggests the "minimum" requirements are around:

#1 RP: 160 ERA+
#2 RP: 130 ERA+
#3 RP: 110 ERA+

With #3 supplemented by lots of good short-term performances (and many bad short-term performances). Those top 3 guys (if healthy) combine for about 180 innings of maybe 140 ERA+ ... for a FA SP that would be, what, at leat $30 M AAV and reliever salaries start to make more sense. A challenge lies in the high chance that at least one of those guys has never done it before and another of those guys is getting old and the third guy is gonna get hurt next year.

Anyway, Jansen's performance over the last 5 years has been somewhere in the solid #3 RP (119 FIP+) to borderline #2 RP (131 ERA+), hasn't consistently pitched at an elite level for some time. Now whether your #1 guy should be your closer is another question (as far as I know generally yes).

Came across an interesting guy in that poking around -- Jaime Barria of the Angels. 29 appearances with 1 start with 72.2 IP so well over 2 innings per appearance. He's got an ERA+ of 155 but a K/9 of just 5.9 so that doesn't seem likely to continue (career 105 ERA+ in nearly 400 IP). Lo-lev guy (18 appearances down by 2 or more) having a nice season (ERA much better than FIP).

Brock Burke of Texas looks interesting with 73 IP in 47 appearance but a 269 ERA+, 2.83 FIP and about 10 K/9 and HR/9 < 1. That looks much more sustainable (well, not the 269 ERA+ but sustainably good). He has mostly come on in the 6th-7th, frequently facing 7-8 batters. He's been used on back-to-back days just once (both 1-inning stints).

"Hiding" someone in the ninth inning as a closer is a pretty stupid idea. Even if it was the strict turn of the millenium, save-stat-influenced role, it is still the highest leverage relief innings.

I was always amused when teams around that time accidentally got it right by having an "established" closer pitch the ninth, but a more talented guy in their pen being used in the highest leverage situations.

"Hiding" someone in the ninth inning as a closer is a pretty stupid idea. Even if it was the strict turn of the millenium, save-stat-influenced role, it is still the highest leverage relief innings.

I was always amused when teams around that time accidentally got it right by having an "established" closer pitch the ninth, but a more talented guy in their pen being used in the highest leverage situations.

But I'm saying that's a fallacy or a myth. The established closer role gets the highest leverage situations over the course of a season. Those teams might be getting it right for an individual game, but overall they are not.

That's true. To maximize leverage, maybe you let someone else take the 3-run leads and bring the closer into more tie games and 8th inning jams. But the 9th inning closer model is well-defined and pretty close to optimized, and it does seem that managers are more likely to go to the closer in the 8th than they used to be (I haven't looked at the data, just seems to be more common now).

In this particular case, with the Braves cruising into the postseason, I don't think they shake up the bullpen during the regular season unless Jansen completely falls apart (109 ERA+, with FIP slightly better than that, is not completely falling apart). Obvious the playoff leash is much shorter. I have no doubt that Iglesias is lined up to be the closer for the next 3 years, so if Jansen does get benched, he's going to take over. Maybe you go to Minter occasionally if the lineup is mostly LHB, but Iglesias is the guy.

This is an example of where the data is probably not as helpful as the eye test. I've seen Jansen a few times this year and he isn't blowing batters away with his fastball and he isn't getting them to chase his breaking pitches. The outs he gets appear to be principally a matter of luck.

This sounds exactly like Bad Kenley, the one who showed up after his heart surgery and was really the Dodgers' Achilles heel for a few years before last year's turnaround. Bad Kenley still strikes people out (though not like he did at his best), but he does it by living too close to the zone and giving up hits, or wandering around outside the zone and hoping that guys will chase his faded junk.

Matt Barnes is available.