The Astros Built a Phenomenal Bullpen

As you’ve probably heard before, there’s not a lot of rooting in this job. Not, at least, rooting of the conventional sort, for a particular team against a particular opponent. What there’s more of is rooting for particular stories, or particular trends. That’s where I found myself earlier — rooting for the Astros bullpen against the Rangers on Thursday, because I knew I wanted to write about it. It was going well, too, until Rougned Odor went deep off of Scott Feldman in the eighth. The Astros never rallied. Still, the bullpen yielded just the one run in more than four innings of work. It did its job, which makes this a decent time to point out it’s rather consistently been doing its job.

The offseason past was the offseason of relievers, and upon its completion, people couldn’t wait to see what the Yankees had assembled in action. The Astros by no means sat the offseason out, but there hasn’t been so much talk about them, what with the disappointing start. And if you think about the Astros bullpen, you might immediately think of the early struggles from Ken Giles. You might think about Luke Gregerson losing his closing gig. Not everything has gone smoothly, which makes it all the more remarkable that the Astros bullpen has been so dominant.

It has been dominant. I don’t think that’s overstating things. The Astros have leaned on it, too, the starting rotation having been through some rough patches. The Yankees get all the attention for being so top-heavy, but the Astros have been strong top to bottom, and this table conveys all the right ideas. Here’s where the Astros bullpen stands in an MLB context, as of this writing:

2016 Astros Bullpen
Stat MLB Rank
K% 2
BB% 1
K-BB% 2
ERA- 5
FIP- 1
xFIP- 1
WPA 1
Shutdowns 1

The worst rank is in adjusted ERA, and you could argue that’s the most important rank. On the other hand, WPA is probably even more important as long as we’re looking back, and besides, ranking fifth in baseball in adjusted ERA is pretty terrific. You know how all these numbers work. You know you can’t ignore ERA, but you also know to trust FIP. The Astros are first in adjusted FIP. In strikeout rate, and in strikeout rate minus walk rate, they’re behind only the Yankees. They lead in shutdowns by a mile.

You Aren't a FanGraphs Member
It looks like you aren't yet a FanGraphs Member (or aren't logged in). We aren't mad, just disappointed.
We get it. You want to read this article. But before we let you get back to it, we'd like to point out a few of the good reasons why you should become a Member.
1. Ad Free viewing! We won't bug you with this ad, or any other.
2. Unlimited articles! Non-Members only get to read 10 free articles a month. Members never get cut off.
3. Dark mode and Classic mode!
4. Custom player page dashboards! Choose the player cards you want, in the order you want them.
5. One-click data exports! Export our projections and leaderboards for your personal projects.
6. Remove the photos on the home page! (Honestly, this doesn't sound so great to us, but some people wanted it, and we like to give our Members what they want.)
7. Even more Steamer projections! We have handedness, percentile, and context neutral projections available for Members only.
8. Get FanGraphs Walk-Off, a customized year end review! Find out exactly how you used FanGraphs this year, and how that compares to other Members. Don't be a victim of FOMO.
9. A weekly mailbag column, exclusively for Members.
10. Help support FanGraphs and our entire staff! Our Members provide us with critical resources to improve the site and deliver new features!
We hope you'll consider a Membership today, for yourself or as a gift! And we realize this has been an awfully long sales pitch, so we've also removed all the other ads in this article. We didn't want to overdo it.

The Yankees have the star power. The Orioles have the history. The Royals have the reputation. The Astros bullpen is more anonymous, and of course that bullpen melted down before a national audience last October. You don’t think of the Astros bullpen as being so good, but the numbers are right there, and we can take this beyond just 2016. Why don’t we go back to 2002? Since then, this Astros bullpen would still rank second in K-BB%. It would rank first in walk rate, by a full percentage point. It would rank second in adjusted FIP, and it would rank second in adjusted xFIP. This is out of 450 team-seasons. Only the 2003 Dodgers were clearly better, by those last two statistics. And the Astros are close.

No, not all the Astros have pitched like they’ve wanted, but the bullpen really has been deep. Nine Astros relievers have thrown at least 10 innings. Here’s a plot of all the relievers with 10+ innings, showing their walk rates and their strikeout rates:

astros-relievers

The really good relievers are mostly toward the upper left. That’s where you find literally all of the Astros included. The league-average K-BB% for a reliever this season is about 14%. The worst K-BB% in the Astros bullpen is 16%, which ranks Pat Neshek in the 61st percentile. That’s the worst, and this is out of nine guys, which is too many guys for a bullpen to have at once. There’s flexibility and depth, and the Astros are thinking about turning one or two of their current relievers into starters.

Things haven’t gone perfectly for Giles. Things haven’t gone perfectly for Gregerson. They’ll both be all right, I assume, but the Astros have really been driven by Michael Feliz and Will Harris. Combined, they have 70 strikeouts and 10 walks, with a 2.92 WPA. Harris was quietly good last year after arriving on waivers from the Diamondbacks; since the start of 2015, he’s allowed a .237 OBP. He seems to have gotten even better. Last year, Feliz was infrequently discussed. This year he’s moved into the bullpen and taken off. Since the start of May, he’s been good for two walks and 33 whiffs, with a .222 OPS that is not a typo. Harris has stepped up and Feliz has emerged, and when you add those factors to what was already a quality unit, you get something sensational.

Could be, a slump is on the way. Or, perhaps, an injury. Or, perhaps, a promotion, where Feliz goes to the rotation and the bullpen loses that arm. They might instead promote Chris Devenski to the rotation, and by the way, he’s been good, too. We are still just two months in, and there are six months in a whole year, and just last summer we saw a reliable Astros bullpen come apart at the very wrong time. But you already know it’s too soon to arrive at historical conclusions. That doesn’t mean we can’t examine performances, and when you examine the performance of the Astros relievers, they’re right there with the best we’ve seen in a while. The back of the Yankees bullpen has the sex appeal. The Astros, I’m sure, are happy to settle for the statistics.





Jeff made Lookout Landing a thing, but he does not still write there about the Mariners. He does write here, sometimes about the Mariners, but usually not.

13 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
rosen380
10 years ago

Using just the described factors from the top of this post, I calculated the z-scores for each for each team… and averaged them together [sure, some/many/most might say not to do that, but I’m a rebel :)]

Astros +1.8
Yankees +1.4
Nationals +0.8
Orioles +0.8
Royals +0.7

Angels -0.7
Padresd -0.7
D’Backs -0.8
Pirates -1.0
Reds -2.6

Might be more notable how historically terrible a bullpen the Reds have created than how great the Astros’ has been. The gap from the Reds at #30 to the Pirates at #29 is the same as 7th to 29th! or 3rd to 28h. Astounding.

Given a presumably high correlation between K% and BB% to K-BB%, ditch the first two and the gap from 29th to 30th is now the same as 4th to 29th

troybrunoMember since 2016
10 years ago
Reply to  rosen380

Terrible bullpens are the new Tankball

RussellMember since 2018
10 years ago

All of this is great on paper. Perhaps it will eventually be enough to overcome the 4 losses and 7 blown saves from Giles & Gregerson alone through the first two months. That’s the difference between the current crap-sandwich position the Astros are in and a respectable record.

Swfcdan
10 years ago

What’s with the poor grammar in the titles on this site? It should be “The Astros have built a phenomenal bullpen”, the current wording makes little sense by itself.

August FagerstromMember since 2018
10 years ago
Reply to  Swfcdan

I, too, was shocked that I clicked on an article titled “The Astros Built a Phenomenal Bullpen” and it ended up being about the Astros, who have a phenomenal bullpen. Very misleading.

Do better, Jeff.

RussellMember since 2018
10 years ago
Reply to  Swfcdan

A passive voice advocate? Off with you!

Jetsy Extrano
10 years ago
Reply to  Russell

FYI that’s not passive. “A phenomenal bullpen has been built” would be passive.

(“The Astros have built” is not even a phrasing that obscures agency, which people sort of understandably call passive even when it grammatically isn’t.)

Also, Swfcdan is the most bizarre language peever I’ve seen all week. Simple past tense is ungrammatical?

Swfcdan
10 years ago
Reply to  Jetsy Extrano

You people keep going on talking American English, I’ll speak proper English. The title grammar indicates what they did was a long time in the past, not a recent development.

Dane Roberns
10 years ago
Reply to  Swfcdan

Clearly, you must mean “what they have done”, right?

borigh
10 years ago
Reply to  Swfcdan

I ran a mile.

I have run a mile.

The former implies that, at a specified point in time, I ran a mile. The latter implies that, at some point in my life, I ran a mile. Asserting that the simple past necessarily implies a longer time from the event described is nonsense. Asserting that the time at which the Astros built that bullpen is unclear, within the article, is also nonsense.

http://www.edufind.com/english-grammar/present-perfect-vs-simple-past/

To quote Val Kilmer: “Who taught you grammar? Get out. Vanish.”

Also, it would be “You people keep speaking American English; …” ‘Going on’ is implied in the imperfect tense. Further, one does not ‘talk’ English. One speaks or is speaking English. The comma is insufficient to join two clauses, absent a conjunction. I’ll assume these mistakes, including the arguably redundant ‘people,’ were an attempt at satire, however.

Blockhead
10 years ago

You forgot they are 1st in ‘blowing a game then talking crap about how bad the other team is after the game then continuing to lose’

raisedeyebrows
10 years ago
Reply to  Blockhead

Too skewed by one guy. The Yankees are first in reaching on catcher’s interference.

johnforthegiants
10 years ago

It’s more important to have a deep bullpen than to have a few great relievers. A lot of games are decided in the 5th-7th inning when the starter is getting tired and it’s too early to bring in the elite closer and setup man. The most consistent pattern in giants’ championship runs is that they always had more good relievers than anyone else, even if they didn’t necessarily have the best individual relievers (unfortunately those days are over).