Yankees @ Mariners 9/12-9/14

*shrugs*

The law of the save I guess is more accurate.

But here are Rivera's splits with a tie game:

191 G, 3.23 ERA, 2.89 K/BB, .247 BAA, .310 OBP, .345 SLG, .656 OPS

Here are his career totals (including the time games):

2.22 ERA, 4.04 K/BB, .211 BAA, .262 OBP, .290 SLG, .553 OPS

That's three full seasons of appearances in tie games (although I don't know how to account for games where he allowed the tying run in).

I don't know why it happens... his BABIP is significantly higher, too (.315 in tie games vs. .264 for his career)... but that's a fairly large sample to be fluky over and could just mean he legitimately gets hit harder. If you look at his tOPS+ (that measures Rivera's performance in certain split situations relative to Rivera's total OPS against), he's 37% worse than "normal Rivera" in tie games. So it's not just a mirage... he's definitely worse when the game is tied.

Granted, it's not like he's been awful in those situations. And I agree that he's a better choice than Proctor. But there's a definite difference between save situation Rivera and tie game Rivera.

 

Nothing like some goddamn data to blow holes in an otherwise compelling theory.


Blasphemous as it may be to even think it, it kind of leads one to consider him a bit overrated. As in, he's only phenomenally successful under optimal conditions, otherwise he's just above average.

So ignore the numbers for a minute and hark back on your little league experience and try to explain what may account for the discrepancy? In a tie game batters can lay off more pitches? He throws harder when he knows he only has three outs to get? What gives?

 

I have no idea. It could be partly psychological. It could be due to different game situations, or being brought in to face better hitters more frequently when the game is tied, or deviation from his normal warmup routine/role, or hell, different defensive positioning in tie games. Without looking at all of the specific game situations and what happened in each, it's hard to make anything more than a guess.

 

In a related topic, Buster Olney was discussing pitchers on Twitter the other day. He made the contention that pitchers often pitch to the scoreboard, rather than the situation. He was lit up by the general public who firmly believe that pitchers do the same thing over and over again, regardless of the situation.

Then he started showing all of the actual MLB pitchers chiming in. Almost every single one of them said they pitch differently depending on what the current score is. Most will take chances when they have any sort of lead that they wouldn't dare with a tie or deficit.

I've made the point here in the past, and was ripped for it, but it is true. Pitchers approach every situation differently and will pitch to the same batter in completely different ways depending on the score/situation.

The real question would be "What is the location, both the intended and result, of Mo's pitches when the score is tied versus when it's a save situation?" The answer to that would likely yield better insight than the raw statistics.

 

The "raw statistics" I posted were just to answer the question of whether Mo pitches worse in tie games. He does. If you want to know why... well... you can look at pitch-by-pitch data if you want.

Pitchers definitely pitch to the score. And I doubt you were ripped merely for pointing that out.

 

You guys have any preference on who takes the wild card?

Myself, I always enjoy me some biblical cataclysmic Red Sox collapse, but I'm not sure I like tangling with the Ray's staff in a seven game series.

 

It depends. The way things are going for the Sox right now, they're the weaker-looking team. But if the Sox hold on and then advance to the ALCS, that would mean they've overcome a lot of their current problems (i.e. Beckett is back and pitching well, Bard stops blowing post-coital donkey, Ortiz and Youkilis are healthy, etc.), then I think they're a tougher team than the Rays.

 

I didn't intend that post as an attack on your posting of the statistics. I just thought it was interesting and relevant to the conversation as an explanation of the statistics.

Yes. The Rays. I don't care whether we can beat them or not. I just want to see the mighty Red Sox, who ESPN convinced the entire planet coming into the year would be unbeatable, completely miss out.

I do agree that at full strength the Sox are better than the Rays. Still though, I hope they're home for the Fall.

 

The Seattle Mariners were thinking that 2010 could have been a great year for them. Or so I thought, too.

 

I'd rather face the Rays. Boston's pitching staff is in shambles, but our rotation isn't so hot either and Boston has the best lineup in baseball. Plus, if there is such thing as homefield advantage in baseball, Fenway has it. The Trop does not.

 

Not saying anything there, considering that Boston probably has the best team in baseball if they're at full strength. Way better than the Rays.

Compare the lineups. Compare the bullpens. Compare the starting rotations. Not even close (the rotations are close now because of the Buchholz injury).

 

Tampa's rotation completely blows Boston's out of the water. Right now the Sox have 2 pitchers who would start for any other AL playoff team, that's terrible.

 

I said when completely healthy, although rotation would be closer than bullpen and lineup.

 

Even when completely healthy, I'd take Price-Shields-Hellickson-Niemann-Moore over Lester-Beckett-Buchholz-Lackey-Wakefield without thinking twice.

The Red Sox are way better than the Rays overall (and as I said above, even now I want no part of Boston in a 7 game series,) but their rotation doesn't hold a candle to Tampa's. Neither does the Yankees', for that matter.

 

Not just this year in baseball... ever!

 

Gardner out by a mile at first, ump calls him safe anyway. What else is new?

 

Red Sox kick some serious ass in the Newbury Street yogurt wars.