Relief Pitchers

Most Baseball games these days last 9 innings. Starting Pitchers during the 2010 MLB season averaged exactly 6.0 innings pitched per start. Closers usually only pitch one inning, and then only in close games where their team has the lead.

So who makes up for the rest of those innings?

You guessed it: Relief Pitchers.

Relief Pitchers inhabit that transitional space between when the starter can simply go no further and either a) the end of the game or b) the Closer is called in to protect a lead. They have no set schedule when they'll pitch. They have no set roles (save for LOOGYs and loosely-categorized "setup men"). As a group, they probably receive the least attention of any "position" in the game. And yet - since Starting Pitchers are showing no indication of becoming more like starting Quarterbacks - they play a necessary part for any team that hopes to be successful.

In 2010, the Year of the Pitcher, three dedicated relievers (Hong-Chih Kuo, Evan Meek, and Matt Thornton) were selected as All-Star reserves by the managers, which to me indicates some interesting recognition for Relief Pitchers qua position rather than just failed starters, or potential Closers who aren't quite good enough to close. Just as the position itself has an element of transience, many relief pitchers find themselves in that role as they're transitioning to or from a more defined role in their careers, which is reflected in the extremely high turnover rate among relievers from year to year. But that doesn't mean that particular pitchers can't excel in that role while they're in it.

Below is a chart of the Relief Pitchers who most excelled (according to swp) in 2010:

Only two dedicated Relievers scored over 20 points per game: Hong-Chih Kuo and Koji Uehara. Both of these guys spent some time as closers in 2010, each recording at least 10 saves, but neither pitched in enough save opportunities to get a CL next to their name. By the numbers: Kuo appeared in 13 of his team's 59 SVOpps (22%) - Uehara appeared in 15/62 (24.2%). As you may recall, my cutoff to qualify someone as a Closer is 25%, so both of these are extremely marginal cases.

As for the other two 1,000 point-scorers who didn't have saves to pad their stats (Tyler Clippard and Matt Belisle each had just one save), you can isolate three similar factors in their performances: innings pitched, earned runs, and strikeouts.

When you jump down to the next three, taking us through the 980s (Rookie Evan Meek, lefty specialist and future closer Matt Thornton, and Clay Hensley, bouncing back after a year off) we see some different trends. There's a wider range in innings and strikeouts, earned runs are still similar, but certain rate stats (namely H/9, HR/9, and BB/9) are almost identical.

But SWP are so variable, since there are many different ways to achieve the same "score" - even among players of the same position - that it's futile to try to find any kind of true correlation. Or rather at least MY efforts have proved futile. Perhaps more astute minds than mine will/would have more success.

So to avoid this pitfall, let's use a more reliable (or at least a more trendy) one-number statistic: Wins Above Replacement. Here's the top Relieves according to WAR:

A lot of the top guys in SWP are still ranked toward the top. But what, for instance, makes Daniel Bard so special that he's worth more "wins" than any of his compatriots while scoring so many fewer "points?" Thornton is within 0.001 points in WHIP. Clippard and Belisle have him way beat in strikeouts and innings. Kuo and Joaquin Benoit have lower ERA.

And what is it about Darren O'Day and Sean Burnett that make them more "valuable" than our 1,000 point powerhouses? What's the secret?

Do they factor in salary to the WAR equation? Seems like that's not totally intuitive or productive.

I suppose there's just too many variables. So many things go into evaluating a player's performance, and it only gets harder with such a nebulous position as Relievers, who basically only have one stat (holds, MAYBE inherited runner scored percentage) to separate them from their other more durable, effective, or specialized pitching colleagues.

But as long as starters continue the trend of not completing every game and closers don't all morph into multiple inning monsters a la Bruce Sutter, we're going to see plenty of action from Relief Pitchers. And until they go away, I will continue to show my appreciation by learning everything I possibly can about them.