He sucked for the 1st inning too.

I get the impression that Tito gives a lot (too much) deference to the older pitchers - Schilling, Timlin, and Wakefield - in regard to how long they should stay in the game.

It still looks like he doesn’t really know how to use his extremely effective pen.

That's a hell of a closing line.

he should learn from Joe

Anybody know what is up with Sons of Sam Horn?

WJ,

I think you have to go to sonsofsamhorn.net now.

aha! there it is

Timlin's been very effective in his second inning of work this year. Dunno why, and dunno if it means anything, but it's there. Of his 9 outings of more than one inning, he's allowed runs in the second inning in only 2. Tito trusted Timlin for more than an inning because he's been trustworthy so far.

It may not have been the right choice, but I see the logic.

I also think that we have a pretty categorical disagreement over how one measures good management of a bullpen. I think that looking at a micro level of who pitches two innings and who doesn't is a quite minor concern. Whether pitchers pitch at or above their usual level of effectiveness, and whether the best pitchers have the most important roles, are much more important. The effectiveness of hte bullpen, to me, is the most significant evidence of good usage.

What was particularly odd about sending him out there in a tie game, let alone for a second inning, was that he hadn't pitched in 11 days because of shoulder trouble. The guy was a better candidate for a retroactive DL assignment than a high leverage appearance. Now instead of getting his feet wet, you're throwing him into the fire, and then keeping him in the game for more pitches after his high-stress 5th?

The only possible excuse I can see is that Tito felt he was shorthanded in the 'pen: Tavarez is the guy he would have preferred to stretch out in that situation, but Tavarez had started Wednesday and probably was only available in an emergency situation. Plus they may want to keep Tavarez shadowing Schilling as insurance until they see the old man makes the start on Monday and gets through it in reasonable shape. And Snyder, the other option for a multiple inning middle relief appearance, had gone 1 2/3 on Thursday.

The problem is, if Manny D pitches the 6th, who pitches the 7th and 8th? Okajima, who's overworked as it is? A pitcher worse than Manny D in a more important inning?

I figure Tito planned to get as many innings as he could out of his #4-5 relievers - that's Timlin and Manny D. Timlin blew it, which sucks. But if you bring in Manny D early, then you've got to either go to a bad reliever, or hang some more innings on your aces, which I'd be loath to do at this point.

You can argue that the top relievers should throw fewer innings in games with larger leads, etc, but (a) that's not an argument in regard to Fri, because the usage was already set and (b) then we're having a larger, theoretical debate about leverage and relief roles, which, well, we've all had a million times as it is.

The only reason Mike Timlin came into a tie game is because Brendan Donnelly got hurt and is out for the year. Even Francona being the sackless douche that he is knows that Donnelly is a better pitcher then Timlin

Timlin's been very effective in his second inning of work this year. Dunno why, and dunno if it means anything, but it's there. Of his 9 outings of more than one inning, he's allowed runs in the second inning in only 2. Tito trusted Timlin for more than an inning because he's been trustworthy so far.

Based on the # of pitches splits, Timlin has been pretty bad after 15 pitches in 07 and over the past several years. 8.38 ERA in 07 now (not sure how much of that came yesterday). It's also a pretty small sample and as mentioned above, he's coming back with a sore shoulder after not pitching for 11 days.

And Delcarmen has been used for more than 1 IP 3 times this year, and he's given up no runs. He was well-rested but not rusty.

The problem is, if Manny D pitches the 6th, who pitches the 7th and 8th? Okajima, who's overworked as it is? A pitcher worse than Manny D in a more important inning?

I figure Tito planned to get as many innings as he could out of his #4-5 relievers - that's Timlin and Manny D. Timlin blew it, which sucks. But if you bring in Manny D early, then you've got to either go to a bad reliever, or hang some more innings on your aces, which I'd be loath to do at this point.

Even if we assume that you can't use all 3 of your top relievers there, you could still go to MDC and the two closers for 1.1 each. Or do something completely crazy like use MDC for 2 IP! I know, it's insanity! Also, if he was trying to get as many innings as he could out of his #4 and #5 pitchers, why did he use MDC for only 2/3?

Timlin is being Proctored, or Quantrillated, or what have you. It's the Neil Young Plan: it's better to burn out than to fade away.

Actually, I buy MCA's theory. But if they're going to pitch any of the short relievers in that pen to the point of burnout with multi-inning stints, Timlin is the right candidate.

By all means, burn him out in mopup situations. Don't burn him out in tie games though.

Based on the # of pitches splits, Timlin has been pretty bad after 15 pitches in 07 and over the past several years. 8.38 ERA in 07 now (not sure how much of that came yesterday).

From what I can tell going through the 2007 game logs, his DIPS ERA in 2007 is 4.87 on PA's that resolved on pitches 1-15, and 5.90 for 16+. Those numbers were 4.95 for 1-15 and 5.15 for 16+ before the other day vs. Seattle. Given both sample sizes, the difference in performance was statistically insignificant for 2007 prior to that game. Also, at the time Timlin hadn't allowed a walk or HR in about a month. The last 14 batters who'd faced him after pitch 15 went 1-for-14 with 0 BB and 4 K.

For his career, BB-Ref has him at a 698 OPS on pitches 1-25, vs. 693 overall, meaning his performance on 26+ pitches was better than on 1-25. That's his whole career, though; other than 2001 and 2005 his recent years have generally been worse on 26+ pitches. I suppose, though, that I'd be hard-pressed to find a worthwhile number of relievers for whom that measure is favorable. Delcarmen, for example, has an OPS for 26+ pitches that's nearly 200 points higher than for 1-25 pitches. His 2007 is no different.

Using your best 3 pitchers for multi-inning outings each, two of them with mid-inning entry, isn't a very appealing option to me. On another day, sure, but on the road against a good home team in another division while we have a one-week lead on the nearest division rival, meh. Maybe I just don't get as worked up about it as I should.

Pitch count splits for relievers have a huge selection bias. If a guy usually throws ~15 pitches per inning, and usually throws only one inning, then most his his 15+ splits will be in innings where he doesn't have his good stuff.

Timlin's game log appears to support this reading - when he sucked early in the season, he had several 20 pitch, 1 IP outings where he gave up a bunch of runs. He also has several 20+ pitch, multiple IP outings where he gave up no runs.

If the issue is whether a pitcher can throw a second inning, his splits in his second inning of work are more useful than his pitch count splits, becuase of the selection bias issue.

Timlin is being Proctored

Timlin isn't being Proctored, if he were Proctored we'd be a .500 ballclub right now.

OKAJIMA is the one being Proctored, he basically comes out EVERYTIME we have a lead.

Goodness gracious, do none of you people understand what being Proctored means? Okajima is on pace to throw 76 innings. 76! Proctor threw that by the middle of August last year.

Boy, that's what I get for listening to Wok

Anytime I hear or read "Goodness gracious" now I immediately think of Suzyn Waldman. To me, "goodness gracious" now means "I'm having an overly emotional reaction to a matter of very little real significance."

That's not what you were going for, was it?

That's not what you were going for, was it?

I'm posting 12 hours later to a comment about the alleged overuse of a reliever who isn't on my team based on a term which implies overuse based on last season's usage of a reliever who used to be on my team but was recently traded. I think "overly emotion reaction" is, if anything, probably understating the matter.