I think it's interesting! I would need to dig in data, but I would want to know: what is the average lowest number of innings pitched by a pitcher who is on the team for a full season. For example, is it reasonable to have a pitcher on a team who will only pitch 50 innings a year. Then, I would want to know for the average team, how often do the situations you laid out (eg. having a greater lead than remaining innings, scoring more than 9 runs in a game, etc.) occur, what are the total number of innings across all those situations, and is it larger than that average number of innings. If so, then it seems like it would be a valuable pitcher to have situationally.
Houston is not my team but signals stealing isn't something others haven't done. I don't believe they deserve the appellation. Red Sox Apple watch steals pretty bad. So if anyone gets to be the "Cheaters"--Red Sox.
Hmmmm I could see this pitcher being valuable when you have a comfortable lead. Up by 4 runs with 3 innings left? Sure, go for it. He might also be useful in the 9th inning if you're up by 2 or more runs. You can save your very best "lights out" pitchers for another day.
He's very obviously a must-roster player as a reliever. Starting him is stupid, but if run difference - innings remaining > 0 he's an auto-win. This is helpful from a traditional "we win" standpoint and also from a rest standpoint. None of your actually good playefs would have to play or try those innings. Winning a game in four innings is simply worth more in a long-teem sense than winning in nine, and that's what Mr. Consistent provides.
I would say that pitcher would be very valuable, probably about as much as a very good reliever middle of the rotation starting pitcher. I'd assume that pitcher probably pitches 50-60 times a year in situations with the lead. Looking at MLB games over time, it seems like a team with a two run lead in the ninth or a three run lead in the eighth on average has about a 93% chance of winning the game. Given some leads are larger than that, I'd say that pitcher could boost your probability of winning from 95 to 100% 50-60 times a year. That gets to me to that pitcher being worth about a very good (but not quite) reliever or about a 4th starter.
What's super interesting about this hypothetical is that it cleaves the joints of most sabermetric analysis, which basically assumes axiomatically that you can't control WHEN runs are scored, just the total number (I'm oversimplifying, but just a bit). Because baseball players emphatically don't work that way, no one has developed a good sense of how to value it.
I think the value here is mostly that this player can guarantee victory from 2 run leads in the ninth, 3 run leads in the eighth, and 4 run leads in the seventh, so teams could consistently outperform their run differentials. The catch is I think these are situations where the home team is usually going to win, anyway, so the value of a guarantee is limited. OTOH, I could see that being worth 1-2 wins per year, which is considered to be a lot for a reliever. I suspect the player would be worth rostering, but not HUGELY valuable.
My immediate instinct is that he’d have some value but not much. Two questions:
1. Does this include inherited runners? If you send him into the middle of an inning with the bases loaded and he lets the runner from third score, that run is not charged to him. If he allows a grand slam he only allowed one run but four runs score.
2. Picking up on that, what if he pitches fractional innings? If you send him out for an inning and a third will he allow one run or two? If you only send him out to get one out per game, will he allow one run exactly every third game?
I agree with most people that he is worth a roster spot, but will not be a great player. His value is in the innings he saves other pitchers from having to appear. And because he probably saves you a bullpen spot (i.e., his team can carry 11 pitchers instead of 12), it allows you more general freedom in roster construction.
He is not just valuable in games where his team's lead exceeds the number of innings remaining. He is also valuable in games that you are already losing badly. If his team is losing 8-0 after two innings, you can have him pitch the final six or seven innings (depending on if his team is the home or visitors), because there is no difference between losing 8-2 and 15-2. You will not have to dip into the bullpen to have guys pitch meaningless innings in a blowout because Rubber Arm will do it. It will keep your other bullpen arms fresher and help reduce overuse injuries with your pitchers.
I'm completely inline with everyone else's opinion that this is a very valuable player. So I'll just note that I didn't think Freddie could get any cooler but these baseball sim league revelations definitely do that, and I will lurk until we get the thread about how many other people stopped following baseball in the last decade. Because wow has it gotten terrible.
Yes, this player would be the most valuable player in baseball. Just like a RB who will always and only give you a 1-yard run in football, removing the variance entirely makes this insanely valuable.
This hypothetical player isn't a very good pitcher statistically, as you note, so I don't think he's worthy of any individual accolades, but his magical reliability would be worth a roster spot. You would have to do an entirely different kind of WAR calculation, but I would assume every team blows enough games in the course of a season where at some point they had a larger lead than the number of innings left that turning all those losses into wins would be quite valuable.
Two other angles I find interesting: if you had an ace closer and two run lead heading into the 9th, would you take the 90% chance of a win + preserving your closer's ego, or send in your Matthew Christopher character for a guaranteed win?
Second, assuming we didn't know the origins of this power, how long would it take for the Fangraphs types to admit that this consistency wasn't just an enormous fluke?
I think there's no question this person is valuable. At least All-Star level.
A 2 WAR in 2021 would put someone in the top 10 of relievers. I think this person would be able to achieve a 2 WAR in a literal sense very easily (not in a mathematical sense since his calculated WAR would be way way below replacement).
This year's best reliever by WAR according to Fangraphs was Liam Hendriks at 2.7, but Hendriks had 3 blown saves and 1 loss where he gave up more runs than IPs. They went 3-1 in these games, so this pitcher would've only been a literal 1 WAR in those situations, but I assume the team had other games where other relievers lost it before Hendriks could come in.
And this is not to mention innings eater value in blowout leads (lead>than IP left) that come up dozens of times a year for good teams. Or the handful of situational baseball where expected runs are >1 (bases loaded no outs, presumably) and a reliever is coming in.
Such a player would indeed be very valuable, but this value derives mainly for the reduced variance of performance rather than the high mean performance. Think about putting this guy as your closer in games where the lead is at least two runs - it's a guaranteed win every time, and there are a lot of fanbases with terrible bullpens that would kill for that. It's just that in real life, average performance and variance of performance have a strong relationship, and so low ERA/WHIP/FIP serves as a pretty danged good proxy for the fact that the pitcher is probably not going to get shelled. Although I am admittedly not encyclopedic in my baseball knowledge, so if there are any players out there with significant playing time who manage to have high mean pitching stats but low performance variance, I'd be interested to hear about them.
Would managers be aware of this pitcher’s “talent” or would it be seen as a weird coincidence?
In any case he would be immensely valuable. Good bullpens shorten games, and with the right lead he would do that on his own.
I think it's interesting! I would need to dig in data, but I would want to know: what is the average lowest number of innings pitched by a pitcher who is on the team for a full season. For example, is it reasonable to have a pitcher on a team who will only pitch 50 innings a year. Then, I would want to know for the average team, how often do the situations you laid out (eg. having a greater lead than remaining innings, scoring more than 9 runs in a game, etc.) occur, what are the total number of innings across all those situations, and is it larger than that average number of innings. If so, then it seems like it would be a valuable pitcher to have situationally.
Houston is not my team but signals stealing isn't something others haven't done. I don't believe they deserve the appellation. Red Sox Apple watch steals pretty bad. So if anyone gets to be the "Cheaters"--Red Sox.
Hmmmm I could see this pitcher being valuable when you have a comfortable lead. Up by 4 runs with 3 innings left? Sure, go for it. He might also be useful in the 9th inning if you're up by 2 or more runs. You can save your very best "lights out" pitchers for another day.
He's very obviously a must-roster player as a reliever. Starting him is stupid, but if run difference - innings remaining > 0 he's an auto-win. This is helpful from a traditional "we win" standpoint and also from a rest standpoint. None of your actually good playefs would have to play or try those innings. Winning a game in four innings is simply worth more in a long-teem sense than winning in nine, and that's what Mr. Consistent provides.
I would say that pitcher would be very valuable, probably about as much as a very good reliever middle of the rotation starting pitcher. I'd assume that pitcher probably pitches 50-60 times a year in situations with the lead. Looking at MLB games over time, it seems like a team with a two run lead in the ninth or a three run lead in the eighth on average has about a 93% chance of winning the game. Given some leads are larger than that, I'd say that pitcher could boost your probability of winning from 95 to 100% 50-60 times a year. That gets to me to that pitcher being worth about a very good (but not quite) reliever or about a 4th starter.
What's super interesting about this hypothetical is that it cleaves the joints of most sabermetric analysis, which basically assumes axiomatically that you can't control WHEN runs are scored, just the total number (I'm oversimplifying, but just a bit). Because baseball players emphatically don't work that way, no one has developed a good sense of how to value it.
I think the value here is mostly that this player can guarantee victory from 2 run leads in the ninth, 3 run leads in the eighth, and 4 run leads in the seventh, so teams could consistently outperform their run differentials. The catch is I think these are situations where the home team is usually going to win, anyway, so the value of a guarantee is limited. OTOH, I could see that being worth 1-2 wins per year, which is considered to be a lot for a reliever. I suspect the player would be worth rostering, but not HUGELY valuable.
My immediate instinct is that he’d have some value but not much. Two questions:
1. Does this include inherited runners? If you send him into the middle of an inning with the bases loaded and he lets the runner from third score, that run is not charged to him. If he allows a grand slam he only allowed one run but four runs score.
2. Picking up on that, what if he pitches fractional innings? If you send him out for an inning and a third will he allow one run or two? If you only send him out to get one out per game, will he allow one run exactly every third game?
I agree with most people that he is worth a roster spot, but will not be a great player. His value is in the innings he saves other pitchers from having to appear. And because he probably saves you a bullpen spot (i.e., his team can carry 11 pitchers instead of 12), it allows you more general freedom in roster construction.
He is not just valuable in games where his team's lead exceeds the number of innings remaining. He is also valuable in games that you are already losing badly. If his team is losing 8-0 after two innings, you can have him pitch the final six or seven innings (depending on if his team is the home or visitors), because there is no difference between losing 8-2 and 15-2. You will not have to dip into the bullpen to have guys pitch meaningless innings in a blowout because Rubber Arm will do it. It will keep your other bullpen arms fresher and help reduce overuse injuries with your pitchers.
This is like the guaranteed 2-yard runner in football. He doesn't and cannot exist.
I'm completely inline with everyone else's opinion that this is a very valuable player. So I'll just note that I didn't think Freddie could get any cooler but these baseball sim league revelations definitely do that, and I will lurk until we get the thread about how many other people stopped following baseball in the last decade. Because wow has it gotten terrible.
Yes, this player would be the most valuable player in baseball. Just like a RB who will always and only give you a 1-yard run in football, removing the variance entirely makes this insanely valuable.
This hypothetical player isn't a very good pitcher statistically, as you note, so I don't think he's worthy of any individual accolades, but his magical reliability would be worth a roster spot. You would have to do an entirely different kind of WAR calculation, but I would assume every team blows enough games in the course of a season where at some point they had a larger lead than the number of innings left that turning all those losses into wins would be quite valuable.
Two other angles I find interesting: if you had an ace closer and two run lead heading into the 9th, would you take the 90% chance of a win + preserving your closer's ego, or send in your Matthew Christopher character for a guaranteed win?
Second, assuming we didn't know the origins of this power, how long would it take for the Fangraphs types to admit that this consistency wasn't just an enormous fluke?
I'm just excited for the comments on this one.
I think there's no question this person is valuable. At least All-Star level.
A 2 WAR in 2021 would put someone in the top 10 of relievers. I think this person would be able to achieve a 2 WAR in a literal sense very easily (not in a mathematical sense since his calculated WAR would be way way below replacement).
This year's best reliever by WAR according to Fangraphs was Liam Hendriks at 2.7, but Hendriks had 3 blown saves and 1 loss where he gave up more runs than IPs. They went 3-1 in these games, so this pitcher would've only been a literal 1 WAR in those situations, but I assume the team had other games where other relievers lost it before Hendriks could come in.
And this is not to mention innings eater value in blowout leads (lead>than IP left) that come up dozens of times a year for good teams. Or the handful of situational baseball where expected runs are >1 (bases loaded no outs, presumably) and a reliever is coming in.
Such a player would indeed be very valuable, but this value derives mainly for the reduced variance of performance rather than the high mean performance. Think about putting this guy as your closer in games where the lead is at least two runs - it's a guaranteed win every time, and there are a lot of fanbases with terrible bullpens that would kill for that. It's just that in real life, average performance and variance of performance have a strong relationship, and so low ERA/WHIP/FIP serves as a pretty danged good proxy for the fact that the pitcher is probably not going to get shelled. Although I am admittedly not encyclopedic in my baseball knowledge, so if there are any players out there with significant playing time who manage to have high mean pitching stats but low performance variance, I'd be interested to hear about them.