[smastroyin]

My post was about Paps role and its effect on the decision making of the Arroyo trade, not to start a big discussion about Papelbon's value as a closer. I wouldn't have even used the term marginalize if I had known it was going to start this (redundant and well discussed) topic again. mea culpa.

This post has been edited by smastroyin: 16 May 2006 - 02:39 PM

[TheoShmeo]

smastroyin, on May 16 2006, 09:40 AM, said:

Regardless, the Sox had a surplus and have used it up themselves by marginalizing Papelbon and misdiagnosing Wells.  I think their decision matrix would have been a little different if they'd had better information.  So, once again, I would question the quality of the information they are getting, especially from the medical staff, before I started questioning the decisions.  On the other hand, if, the day before they made this trade, they knew there was a 90% chance Tito would make Papelbon the closer and a 50% chance that Wells would miss more than 6 weeks, and they still made this decision, then I think it becomes questionable.
<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

While I do like the trade, I agree that not having a good handle on Wells shines a pretty unfavorable light on their decision making process. An underlying premise to the trade had to have been that Arroyo was surplus because Wells was close to ready. That was obviously a false premise and I'm surprised they were as off as they were on that. But even with that snafu, the odds of someone going down in the OF -- at some point -- were high enough that procuring a quality 4th OF was very smart. Who was their 4th OF when they opened the division series last October? Adam Hyzdu, I believe.

Parenthetically, I don't buy that Papelbon has been marginalized. Yes, they are not getting starter innings out of him, but I think you are under-estimating the great value in having a lights out closer. What was the alternative? Foulke or Timlin would have almost definitely blown a save or two by now, so if Paps was starting they'd have a less effective closer and one less reliable set up guy.

This post has been edited by TheoShmeo: 16 May 2006 - 10:16 AM

[LahoudOrBillyC]

TheoShmeo, on May 16 2006, 08:15 AM, said:

Parenthetically, I don't buy that Papelbon has been marginalized.  Yes, they are not getting starter innings out of him, but I think you are under-estimating the great value in having a lights out closer.  What was the alternative?  Foulke or Timlin would have almost definitely blown a save or two by now, so if Paps was starting they'd have a less effective closer and one less reliable set up guy.
<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I agree with smastroyin's use of the word "marginalized". As I said in April, I think the start to the Red Sox season was misleading, in that the combination of the good starting pitching and the mediocre offense created a series of lower scoring games, making Papelbon's role briefly very valuable.

Papelbon has had four one-run saves, the last on April 16. With the offense heating up, Papelbon has settled into a much more realistic relief pitcher role. In the past 24 games, he has had seven save opportunities, five of them of the three-run variety. In the past 10 days he has pitched twice, once in a game that was basically already lost.

He is continuing to pitch well, but he will not have the impact on this team that Josh Beckett or Curt Schilling will. Perhaps the Red Sox felt they had no choice, and they might be right. I don't know whether he can be a good major league starter, but I hope that we figure that out at some point.

This post has been edited by LahoudOrBillyC: 16 May 2006 - 10:31 AM

[BigJimEd]

LahoudOrBillyC, on May 16 2006, 11:31 AM, said:

I agree with smastroyin's use of the word "marginalized".  As I said in April, I think the start to the Red Sox season was misleading, in that the combination of the good starting pitching and the mediocre offense created a series of lower scoring games, making Papelbon's role briefly very valuable.

Papelbon has had four one-run saves, the last on April 16.  With the offense heating up, Papelbon has settled into a much more realistic relief pitcher role.  In the past 24 games, he has had seven save opportunities, five of them of the three-run variety.  In the past 10 days he has pitched twice, once in a game that was basically already lost.

He is continuing to pitch well, but he will not have the impact on this team that Josh Beckett or Curt Schilling will.  Perhaps the Red Sox felt they had no choice, and they might be right.  I don't know whether he can be a good major league starter, but I hope that we figure that out at some point.
<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I don't see how one can say Papelbon has been marginalized if they don't know if he'd a be a good starter. Would this team be better with Papelbon in the rotation and Dinardo in the pen? I'm not sure that can be answered right now.
In the pen, Papelbon will not have the impact of Schilling and beckett, that I agree with but I don't think he'd have that effect in the rotation either. At least not at this time. And that's not even getting into any potential psychological effect of closers and/or top bullpen.



As for the Arroyo trade proving the FO was way off on the Well's diagnosis. I'm not sure I'm ready to say that either. I think it's just as reasonable, they knew there was a good chance that Wells or any starter, maybe several, would miss significant time but felt the trade was still worth it. I think knowing what they know right now, they'd still do the deal. IMO it's at least a wash short term with the injuries and has long term benefits.

[Worst Trade Evah]

LahoudOrBillyC, on May 16 2006, 10:31 AM, said:

I agree with smastroyin's use of the word "marginalized".  As I said in April, I think the start to the Red Sox season was misleading, in that the combination of the good starting pitching and the mediocre offense created a series of lower scoring games, making Papelbon's role briefly very valuable.

Papelbon has had four one-run saves, the last on April 16.  With the offense heating up, Papelbon has settled into a much more realistic relief pitcher role.  In the past 24 games, he has had seven save opportunities, five of them of the three-run variety.  In the past 10 days he has pitched twice, once in a game that was basically already lost.

He is continuing to pitch well, but he will not have the impact on this team that Josh Beckett or Curt Schilling will.  Perhaps the Red Sox felt they had no choice, and they might be right.  I don't know whether he can be a good major league starter, but I hope that we figure that out at some point.
<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Maybe this is now part of the bullpen discussion, but how much are we actually losing? Papelbon currently has a leverage index of 1.55. I'm not sure what all the implications of that are, but if the average inning has a LI of 1.0, and Papelbon both maintains his LI index and pitches 80 innings, then we're getting the equivalent of 124 innings of work out of him (of LI 1.0 innings). If he'd been a starter, maybe he'd have thrown 175 innings or so (of LI 1.0 innings).

So we're losing some innings (50 ish?), but we did nail down the bullpen at a time when it was a question, and also acclimated a young pitcher we didn't know that much about. Doesn't seem like such a huge loss, though I agree we are giving something up here.

But I'm probably misusing this LI stuff. Can you convert the LI back and forth for equivalent inning value?

[ShaneTrot]

Man, I love this discussion.

We have no idea how Papelbon would have performed as a starter this year. Would he have been an innings eating horse or would teams figure him out the second time through the order? Your guess is good as mine.

We do know that Tito loves the guy out of the pen. We know Tito loves the vets and tends not to use the kids. So Tito picking this guy over Foulke and Timlin as his best reliever really solidifies the argument that he will be in the pen in 06.

I think the Sox back up plan all along has been Lester. They are limiting his innings purposefully, so he can be used down the stretch if needed or he blows away AAA.

I think the WMP trade was made because the Sox had a surplus of pitching at the time (now debatable) and they have pathetic power and OF options in the system.

[jah317]

Worst Trade Evah, on May 16 2006, 12:23 PM, said:

Maybe this is now part of the bullpen discussion, but how much are we actually losing? Papelbon currently has a leverage index of 1.55. I'm not sure what all the implications of that are, but if the average inning has a LI of 1.0, and Papelbon both maintains his LI index and pitches 80 innings, then we're getting the equivalent of 124 innings of work out of him (of LI 1.0 innings). If he'd been a starter, maybe he'd have thrown 175 innings or so (of LI 1.0 innings).

So we're losing some innings (50 ish?), but we did nail down the bullpen at a time when it was a question, and also acclimated a young pitcher we didn't know that much about. Doesn't seem like such a huge loss, though I agree we are giving something up here.

But I'm probably misusing this LI stuff. Can you convert the LI back and forth for equivalent inning value?
<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

My worry would not be that Papelbon's useage would hurt the team this year but in the coming years. If he throws less than 80 innings is this team going to let him throw 150 next year? Especially when his career high in around 130? Papelbon, who I think should be a starter, would either be forced into the bullpen next year or have to do something like go to the minors in order to limit his innings while making sure he is streched out. I worry this move could force him in being a career reliever when I think he could be more valuable as a starter for his career.

[behindthepen]

Didn't we know coming into the season that the FO was never going to let Paps throw close to 200 ip? And with that view, he's certainly more valuable in the bullpen in Boston than on some training program in Pawtucket.
Once we have a better view of what Wells is capable of giving us, I wouldn't be surprised if we saw a Timlin/Foulke closer situation, and Paps moving into the rotation.

[86spike]

There is also the 500 pound gorilla named Roger over in the corner.

He's been there all winter and all spring and probably has had some (if small) amount of influence on our pitching moves.

[Lucen]

I had an argument last night with a Yankees fan who just refuses to believe that the WMP trade was anything but the worst move in this regime's history. He kept insisting that Wily Mo stikes out 66% of the time, which should give you all an indication of how productive the debate was. At any rate, no matter how well Bronson pitches this season, I stand by my original position that it's a trade I make every time.

Yes, the pitching depth vanished almost over night, but a number 5 starter isn't the toughest hole to fill. Papelbon moving to the pen coupled with Wells having a major setback in his recovery left us with Lenny DiNardo coming out every 5th day. Not a strong major league pitcher, but capable until they can improve. At this point, I don't see it being very likely that Papelbon will be taken out of the closer's role at all this season, and it's starting to appear more and more likely they are considering him as the team's closer beyond just this year.

He's going to falter, he's going to blow a save eventually, and a few more by the end of the season. But if what we've seen of him thus far is really what he's capable of, I think he provides his optimum value as a closer. Having that stabalizing presence at the back end of the bullpen is a huge reason why the Yankees out perform their PYTHAG projections every year. They win more close games than the average team because of it. The Sox are winning more close games this year than most teams, and certainly more than the 95 win team from 2005 did.

Last year, the White Sox were one of the best teams in baseball in 1 run games. They won the world series. Being good in close games is more important, IMO, than having an upgrade over Lenny DiNardo in May. So again, I make the Arroyo for Pena trade every day and am happy to do so. They'll upgrade that slot if Wells really is cooked. And we'll still have WMP (I just typed WiMP and fixed it, but I kinda like that, heh... has an ironic quality to it) in a Red Sox uniform.

[Lucen]

I appears some of the discussions around here are starting to focus on Jonathan Papelbon and where he's most valuable. Considering this, I thought it might be prudent to start a discussion on how the Sox should use him after 2006 is over. It seems very likely he'll remain the closer for the rest of the year unless he starts to struggle there at some point. So, if what we've seen of him thus far is what he can provide as a closer, what should the team do with him in 2007?

As a closer he provides a stabalizing presence at the back end of the rotation. Someone they know they can count on. That's one very good reason to keep him there. As a starter, however, he might provide a stable number 2 or 3 quality pitcher behind Josh Beckett and probably Curt Schilling for at least one more year. It's even possible he'll be better than that, but without seeing him start, it's impossible to tell. There are good reasons to go either way with him, though. So which is more valuable to the team? Papelbon as a closer, or Papelbon as a starter?

Let's look at some examples of how his best case scenario might affect the team by examining some other pitchers in those roles. I am by no means comparing Papelbon's body of work to any of these pitchers, I'm just looking at the impact they had on their teams as a way to gauge what the best possible impact Papelbon could have on the Red Sox.

No one in their right mind would compare Papelbon to Mariano Rivera. But having a pitcher like Rivera, or Eric Gagne for the Dodgers over the last few years before he got hurt, or Keith Foulke for the A's in 2003 and the White Sox before that, and the Sox for 2004, or even John Smoltz for the Braves closing out games really changes the complexion of a team. At this point, Papelbon is more like Bobby Jenks than any of those names, but even Bobby Jenks can be included in this discussion because he was a big part of the reason the White Sox won it all last year. They had a guy at the back end who could be counted on to close out games. Take a look at each of those teams listed and how they performed in comparison to their PYTHAG:

Red Sox:
2004 PYTHAG 96-66 Actual record 98-64

Yankees:
1997 PYTHAG 100-62 Actual record 96-66
1998 PYTHAG 108-54 Actual record 114-48
1999 PYTHAG 96-66 Actual record 98-64
2000 PYTHAG 85-76 Actual record 87-74
2001 PYTHAG 89-71 Actual record 95-65
2002 PYTHAG 99-62 Actual record 103-58
2003 PYTHAG 96-66 Actual record 101-61
2004 PYTHAG 89-73 Actual record 101-61
2005 PYTHAG 90-72 Actual record 95-67

White Sox: (Foulke from 1999-2002, Jenks in 2005)
1999 PYTHAG 72-89 Actual record 75-86
2000 PYTHAG 92-70 Actual record 95-67
2001 PYTHAG 81-81 Actual record 83-79
2002 PYTHAG 86-76 Actual record 81-81
2005 PYTHAG 91-71 Actual record 99-63
(I excluded Foulke's 1998 year because he wasn't very solid that year and thus wasn't very stable at the back end of the rotation for them)

Athletics:
2003 PYTHAG 94-68 Actual record 96-66

Braves:
2002 PYTHAG 96-64 Actual record 101-59
2003 PYTHAG 96-66 Actual record 101-61
2004 PYTHAG 95-67 Actual record 96-66

Dodgers:
2002 PYTHAG 89-73 Actual record 92-70
2003 PYTHAG 83-79 Actual record 85-77
2004 PYTHAG 89-73 Actual record 93-69

With the exception of 2 seasons out of the 22 in the sample, every team out performed their PYTHAG projection. In some cases it was only by a few games, in others it was by a large margin. But it seems overwhelmingly apparent that a stabalizing presence at the back end of the bullpen is a key cog if you want to perform better than your projections say you should. This often means winning a lot of close games.

That seems like a very good reason to keep Papelbon as a closer beyond 2006. And of course, once more, this is all *IF* what we've seen thus far is indicative of what we'll see from him in the future. Nothing is certain.

I think it's obvious my belief is that he should remain a closer as long as he continues to perform at this level. (Being able to shut down big lineups, not being perfect in every opportunity) I'm sure others will have reasons for disagreeing, and I look forward to seeing them.

[redinchicago]

It's pretty simple, IMO. He needs to develop his splitter and slider a little better before he can be trusted as a full time starter. He current fits best as a closer, because he can turn up his fastball to 96+ with late life.

[Pandemonium67]

I don't think Paps is being marginalized. One benefit that's hard to measure is how much he's helped the entire bullpen by being the light's out closer, keeping the pressure (and wear and tear) off Timlin and giving Foulke the chance to work his way back.

There'd be splooging all over SoSH if the Sox had gotten Gagne in his prime, Lidge (before Pujols castrated him) or even Wagner or BJ. That's what the Sox have gotten from Paps, at least to this point. Personally, I think he'll remain pretty damn good but won't keep up his current insane pace.

The one thing nobody could've foreseen was the emergence of Brandon Cy Arroyo. It's hard to know what combination of flukiness, improvement on his part, or the NL's sheer suckitude or lack of familiarity with BA has led to this, but nobody saw it coming. As with almost all trades, especially those of relatively young players, the verdict has to remain out for at least a few years. If it's a young Dave Winfield the Sox acquired with WMP, then the Reds can have Brandon.

[URI]

JimD, on May 16 2006, 02:49 PM, said:

Someone should open a 'Is Paps being marginalized' thread, and keep this one to discussion of WMP and the trade.
<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

This is now your one stop Paps spot.

[Philip Jeff Frye]

LahoudOrBillyC, on May 16 2006, 11:31 AM, said:

Papelbon has had four one-run saves, the last on April 16.  With the offense heating up, Papelbon has settled into a much more realistic relief pitcher role.  In the past 24 games, he has had seven save opportunities, five of them of the three-run variety.  In the past 10 days he has pitched twice, once in a game that was basically already lost.
<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Are we likely to face a similar situation over 10 days in October?

[Eric Van]

FWIW, both BP and Tango et al have studied guys who have pitched in both roles, and concluded, respectively, that the average pitcher gains 1.00 / 0.80 of ERA by moving to the bullpen.

I have Papelbon as having saved the eqivalent of 19.1 runs relative to average, using WPA. His actual runs saved is 10.4, which gives a 1.8 leverage.

The rosiest estimate for his ERA as a starter would be 1.02 (his Component ERA according to Contextual Runs; Tango et al did their study with components) + 0.80. If he'd pitched 51 IP like Schilling, Beckett, and Wakefield have (roughly), he would have saved 18.4 runs, less a typical amount of UER.

So, even if you believe that he could have put up a 1.82 ERA as a starter so far, he wouldn't have been more valuable than as a reliever. However, this of course ignores the question of how the role change effects the value of other pitchers (Foulke, DiNardo, etc.).

[Hatcher Steals Home]

Lucen said:

With the exception of 2 seasons out of the 22 in the sample, every team out performed their PYTHAG projection.  In some cases it was only by a few games, in others it was by a large margin.  But it seems overwhelmingly apparent that a stabalizing presence at the back end of the bullpen is a key cog if you want to perform better than your projections say you should.  This often means winning a lot of close games.

That seems like a very good reason to keep Papelbon as a closer beyond 2006.  And of course, once more, this is all *IF* what we've seen thus far is indicative of what we'll see from him in the future.  Nothing is certain.
<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

One thing you are missing here is that beating the Pythag Projection is not the ultimate goal. Yes, with a powerful bullpen, teams can beat their Pythag. With Papelbon as closer, the Red Sox could/would likely beat their Pythag. But, seeing as these projections are all based on the relative nature of runs scored to runs allowed, the Red Sox, could win MORE (real) games and come under their Pythag, than they would by leaving Papelbon as closer and beating their projections.

Honestly, I am not arguing either way at this point, I don't personally know if the team would actually win more games with Papelbon a starter or as a "closer." But, the argument that the Red Sox are best served by constructing usage patterns that offer the best opportunity to beat the Pythag, is weak.

We'll have to assume the offense will be equal here, after that the argument comes down to: will the team give up fewer runs with Papelbon the Starter or will the team give up fewer runs with Papelbon the Closer? More practical still, is the question (and really the whole point of this exercise, and what is currently under discussion): Do the Red Sox win more games with Papelbon the Starter or Papelbon the Closer?

In my ignorance, the next obvious question is murky: Of the run differential between Papelbon the Closer and Papelbon the Starter, what is the real cost in terms of winning or losing games? For example, if a game is essentially out of reach early, the (losing) starter, may be left in, in one sense, to "save the bullpen," and give up more runs than he would normally be expected to give up.

This post has been edited by Hatcher Steals Home: 16 May 2006 - 03:20 PM

[Paul M]

The question is how many more max-lev innings will he be faced with. So far, it's definitely the case he's been most valuable in his current role where he was faced with so many close games to finish. April was an anomaly.

[Eric Van]

Paul M, on May 16 2006, 03:17 PM, said:

The question is how many more max-lev innings will he be faced with. So far, it's definitely the case he's been most valuable in his current role where he was faced with so many close games to finish. April was an anomaly.
<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Through 4/21:

9 G, 10.1 IP, 0 ER, 5.7 runs saved, 16.5 Win-Equivalent runs saved, 2.9 leverage.

Since, excluding his loss:

9 G, 9 IP, 0 ER, 5.1 runs saved, 6.3 Win-Equivalent runs saved, 1.2 leverage.

Neither stretch is typical and it's impossible to say now what a full year's work will look like.

[941827]

This is pure conjecture on my part.

Is there any reason to believe Paps will be the closer all year?

Hansen's pitching well in AAA and Foulke's holding up. If the Sox send DiNardo down and bring up Hansen at the A-S break, the Sox will have Tavarez, Timlin, Foulke and Hansen to pitch 7-9. Plus, Paps' overall innings will be reasonable for the year if he only starts for half the season.

And, incidentally, having Paps as your fifth starter likely becomes most important during the second half, when the Sox have a 21 games in 20 day stretch against a run of very good teams.

Plus, if Hansen is all he appears to be and is installed as the closer for the second half, few teams will have seen his "stuff" all year, which means he'll likely be effective for the entire second half (a la Huston Street last year).