The Difference Between Cleveland and Chicago’s Bullpen
When it became very clear that the 2016 Chicago Cubs, the 103-win Chicago Cubs, were potentially one game away from their historical season coming to a disappointing finish, the pitcher standing on the mound was Travis Wood. Wood had just been brought in to face the left-handed Jason Kipnis, and Wood had just thrown three balls in four pitches to Jason Kipnis, and then an 87-mph cutter breaking right toward the heart of the plate. Kipnis hit the very hittable cutter 10 rows deep into the right field bleachers at Wrigley Field, on a windy night in Chicago when would-be home runs were becoming warning track fly outs all evening long. Not this one.
Nothing was stopping this ball, off the bat at 105 mph, from landing in the bleachers (and then immediately being thrown back onto the field), from giving the Indians a 7-1 lead in the game, and from getting the Indians one step closer to the 3-1 lead in the World Series which they now possess. And when that ball was on its way out of the playing field, Aroldis Chapman, Hector Rondon, and Pedro Strop, the three most important Cubs relievers during the regular season, looked on from the third-base bullpen, none of them having thrown a single pitch in the game.
Rondon eventually mopped up Wood’s mess — and Justin Grimm‘s and Mike Montgomery’s mess, too — throwing two scoreless innings, striking out two of the eight batters he faced while pumping fastballs that touched 99 mph. And the fact that it was Rondon who mopped up the mess caused by lesser relievers, while Chapman and Strop contributed nothing, highlights the key difference between the bullpens of the Chicago Cubs and the Cleveland Indians in this World Series.
It’s not that the Cubs don’t have a trio of relievers as talented as Cleveland’s late-inning triumvirate of Andrew Miller, Cody Allen, and Bryan Shaw. They do. They might even have the more talented trio. Chapman, Strop, and Rondon combined for a 2.59 ERA and a 2.55 FIP in the regular season. Miller, Allen, and Shaw combined for a 2.36 ERA, but a 2.93 FIP. The regular season results paint an almost identical picture. The projections actually favor the Cubs relief corps.
The difference is this: entering Game Four on Saturday, Chapman, Strop, and Rondon had combined to throw a grand total of four innings for the Cubs in the World Series. Miller, Allen, and Shaw had thrown double that many. The first guys out of Terry Francona’s bullpen in the World Series have been Miller, Zach McAllister, Miller, and Miller. The first guys out of Joe Maddon’s bullpens have been Strop, Montgomery, Grimm, and Montgomery.
Only one time has a Cubs starting pitcher handed the ball off to one of the team’s three best regular season relievers, and in that one instance, in Game One, Pedro Strop faced just one batter, who he struck out, throwing just six pitches. Then came Wood, and then came Grimm, who put two men on before Rondon came in and served up the three-run homer to Roberto Perez that blew open the game.
In Game Three, it was Carl Edwards Jr. who was left in to face Coco Crisp with the go-ahead run on third base, having already thrown 23 pitches, while Strop, Rondon, and most importantly, Chapman, sat idly in the bullpen. Crisp brought that run in, and it was all Cleveland needed to win.
Game Four saw Cleveland turn an uncertain 3-1 sixth-inning lead into a 7-1 blowout the following inning by beating up on Montgomery, Grimm, and Wood without ever having to face the three-headed monster envisioned at the back end of the Cubs’ bullpen when they traded top prospect Gleyber Torres and more to the Yankees at the deadline for Chapman.
Of course, it’s easier to use your best relievers when you’ve got the lead, and the Indians’ hitting and starting pitching has afforded them more leads than the Cubs. That being said, deficits can still be held in check, and we just saw in Game Four how quickly a manageable deficit can get out of hand when a lesser reliever is on the mound. Part of this, too, is Rondon and Strop potentially not being their true selves. Strop missed more than a month with knee and groin injuries that kept him sidelined until late September; Rondon missed several weeks around the same time with arm problems. And the other part is Chapman, whose warmup routine currently prevents him from straying too far from his ninth inning role, forcing situations like the one Chicago faced in Game Three, when Edwards gave up the game-winning hit to Crisp in a situation when the Cubs would have likely loved to have their best reliever in the game.
It all boils down to this: Cleveland’s triumvirate of relievers consists of baseball’s most prolific reliever over the last four years, the fourth-most prolific reliever, and then Miller, who can not only be ready to enter the game at a moment’s notice but also has the ability to throw north of 40 pitches unphased. The Cubs, on the other hand, have a trio that’s just as talented as Cleveland’s — if not more so — but consists of two relievers potentially hindered by injury, and one reliever admittedly hindered by his routine.
“It’s hard to do that,” Maddon said after Friday’s Game Four loss, referring to Cleveland’s bullpen usage. “It really is. And everybody’s going to be clamoring, ‘That’s the way you should work your bullpens from now on,’ but you have to have the appropriate people to do that, and of course during the season it would be much more difficult as opposed to the microcosm of the postseason. So I think that’s it. They have the right guys among their pitchers to do that, and Kluber kind of like gives them a blow, like what he did tonight.”
Whether attributed to heath, routine, score, or managerial aggressiveness, the Cubs have seen two leads get out of hand and a tie game blown, all while their regular season’s most important relievers were available to pitch, but were not in the game. The Cubs paid a steep price to acquire Chapman to complement an already great one-two, late-inning punch in Rondon and Strop, no doubt in hopes of receiving World Series results similar to what Cleveland has gotten from Miller, Allen, and Shaw. Yet, those three relievers have combined to throw just six innings, and less than three of consequence. Chicago’s bullpen has been a non-factor in the World Series, a hindrance, even, but it isn’t for a lack of talent.
August used to cover the Indians for MLB and ohio.com, but now he's here and thinks writing these in the third person is weird. So you can reach me on Twitter @AugustFG_ or e-mail at august.fagerstrom@fangraphs.com.
So Maddon is not a good manager?
If the USA Today article is to be believed, it seems that Girardi is not a good manager to have allowed Chapnan to be a prisoner of his routine, though the Cubs had a meaningless month of September wherein they could have worked to change this routine. So yeah, it’s fair to throw some blame Maddon’s way.
If being a “prisoner of his routine” allows him to pitch significantly faster than every person on Earth I say keep him locked up.
Here is a conversation that isn’t happening in September:
“Hey guys we’ve dominated our division and are the odds on favorite to win the World Series. Let’s force Chapman out of his routine and into situations he’s not used to in case we want to overreact to Cleveland’s bullpen getting the better of us in the WS.”
It’s easy to forget that Cubs stole one in Cleveland and took Game 3 down to the final at-bat with multiple ways to not just tie but win. There’s a lot of things you could blame the current series standing on before you get to Cubs bullpen decisions. Their bats have been frigid, they’ve had some defensive lapses, and Cleveland is a pretty good team with a great manager in their own right.
I feel like he has done a less than stellar job managing the Cubs so far this postseason, but that hasn’t done much to change my opinion that he is still one of the very best in baseball. Players seem to love him, and he isn’t opposed to trying new ideas and strategies, a seemingly rare trait among Major League managers.
Even great managers get out-managed, especially in the scope of a best of 7 series. He’s always been a players manager, one that guys love to play for and maybe he’s letting that interfere with using his bullpen in ways that his guys aren’t used to.
If the Indians win the World Series, it will continue a 3-year trend of Series’ winners’ pitching staffs being based on one legitimate ace who can go deep into the game (Bumgarner, Cueto, Kluber), a number of averagish starters who are expected to make it to the 4th-6th innings (Hudson, Peavy, Volquez, Ventura, Tomlin, Bauer, etc.) , and a relief staff which can pretty much shut down the other team the rest of the way (Petit, Casilla, Affeldt, Davis, Herrera, Madson, Miller, Allen, Shaw, etc.). The pattern is pretty clear.
Sorry if Cubs’ fans don’t like this, but that seems to be how teams win World Series these days.
In their defense, the Chapman trade shows that they are aware of this.
No it doesn’t. Chapman isn’t flexible enough in terms of how many innings he can pitch and when. That’s one of the main points of this article. If Maddon had understood the problem he would have gone for someone who can pitch more innings.
IIRC the Cubs wanted Miller more but they and the Yankees wouldn’t budge from their stands on including Schwarber in the deal. So it’s might have been the front office not going as “al-in” for 2016 as they should have.
With Miller’s contract, trading for him would have been going all in for both 2016 and 2017.
The trade-off was between giving up a big piece of the young core — all mostly under team control through *2021* — and having the best reliever in the game for one and a half years. I’m not sure the Cubs FO made the right decision (a lot can happen to a team built on young guys), but 2016-2017 may have too early to push the chips all in.
Is Chapman really not flexible enough, or is that where the blame is falling as far as Maddon’s bullpen usage? If the high leverage inning is the 8th or 7th, then Maddon should be putting him in, even if it is only for one inning, or more if he breezes through it.
Good point. Am I mistaken in recalling Torre using this exact move over the course of his Series wins? Many games are won/lost in the middle innings. Put players in when their skills most impact the game. Like Showalter, Madden is failing to adjust his style to the circumstanes.
Apparently he doesn’t like that either. He likes to know when he’s coming in.
I don’t think that’s a trend at all. Didn’t the Giants have like a 9 ERA when Bumgarner wasn’t pitching? It was very different case from Royals and Cleveland.
It wasn’t low but it was 9. The were four bad starter performances, Vogelsong in game 4 of the NLCS, Vogelsong in game 4 of the World Series, Peavy in game 6 of the World Series, and Hudson in game 7 of the World Series. Bochy got the starter out fast each time and the Giants won three of the games. Here are the IPs and ERAs all the pitchers on the 3 teams with 7+ IP other than Bumgarner, Cueto, and Kluber:
IP ERA
Hudson 21 4.29
Peavy 16 6.19
Vogelsong 12.1 6.57
Casilla 7.1 0.00
Affeldt 11.2 0.00
Petit 12.2 1.42
Romo 7 1.29
Volquez 28.2 3.77
Ventura 21 6.43
Young 15.2 2.87
Davis 10.2 0.00
Herrera 13.2 0.66
Hochvar 10.2 0.00
Madson 8.1 5.40
Tomlin 15.1 1.76
Bauer 9 5.00
Miller 17 0.00
Allen 10 0.00
Shaw 8 3.38
Cueto 25 5.40
So why pick him as the main man above Volquez who had more innings and a lower ERA?
It doesn’t matter for the sake of the analysis but in terms of constructing a pitching staff which is suited to the playoffs, cueto fits the profile more than volquez. And the analysis was initially suggested to me by a royals fan who specifically identified cueto’s innings-eating in some of his postseason starts as crucial to their winning the world series.
Lol this is dumb. The cubs have an ace and a bullpen that’s just as good.
The Cubs’ bullpen is good for short stints but isn’t nearly as deep, they can’t pitch as many innings and be good. The 2014 Giants won 3 games in the postseason where their starter was out of the game by the 3rd inning and the bullpen didn’t give up a single run after that (20 shutout innings, 15 if you don’t count Bumgarner in Game 7 of the World Series), and a fourth (18-inning) game where the bullpen pitched 10 shutout innings. Against playoff-caliber opponents. That’s the whole problem for the Cubs, they just don’t have that kind of bullpen depth. That’s what this article is about.
Sorry if you don’t like it but that is their problem. And also that their starters can’t generally pitch so deep into the game.
No, the article is about the Cubs misusing (i.e. “not using”) their top bullpen arms, who in aggregate are just about as effective as Cleveland’s. The Indians bullpen success relative to the Cubs has nothing to do with depth.
Indians bullpen usage in their (as of now) 3 World Series victories:
A. Miller – 5.1
Allen – 2.1
Shaw – 1.2
Otero – 1.0 (with a 5 run lead going into the 9th)
In Game 2, the Indians brought out their “depth” arms down two runs. Miller was unlikely to pitch since he’d gone a loooong two innings in Game 1. The depth arms combined to put the game out of reach.
The surprising thing to me is that the Indians “big three” is widely considered to be Miller, Allen, and Shaw. But Otero has outpitched Shaw both over his career and in 2016, and saw more innings (though fewer appearances) than Shaw did this year. What does Francona know about them that I don’t?
(1) As people here have pointed out (for example Adam S below), Strop and Rondon simply haven’t been effective recently (as he points out, ‘August hasn’t followed the Cubs very closely’) , (2) as August pointed out, Chapman can’t be used flexibly, and (3) the other relievers haven’t been effective in the playoffs. None of that is about misuse of the bullpen. The Cubs just don’t have the arms to play this kind of game effectively, the only thing really reliable they have is Chapman in the 9th, and that’s a big reason why they’re losing this series.
Tomj:
Repertoire.
Remember how he left Shaw to face Schwarber?
He figured (correctly) that Shaw’s stuff was as good or better a match for the situation.
Otero may have slightly better overall ERA numbers, but in much less innings, meaning less proven, and his issue before 2016 is his lack of ability to strike out people, making him more vulnerable to BABIP swings. Better to have guy who can get strikeout than guy relying on poor contact. And even there, Otero has .306 BABIP vs .286 BABIP, yeah, SSS, but so far Shaw is better at striking out batters, and even when giving up contact, gives up less than Otero.
Plus, looking at usage patterns, clearly Shaw has been a setup guy used a lot by Indians for many years now, whereas Otero was coming off subpar year in 2015, so he doesn’t have a lot of experience in setting up, especially relative to Shaw.
And I say this as a Giants fan who was upset when the Giants DFAed him and the A’s picked him up. I am only mollified by the fact that we got Casilla from the A’s previously.
The what if factor on Schwarber for Miller is huge.
Long term it will depend on the kinds of careers Schwarber and Frazier have.
If Schwarber has a HOF career and the Cubs are a perennial powerhouse thanks to him they will be vindicated.
It’s worth remembering the cubs have the money to compete year after year. They didn’t need to go all in, damn the topedoes.
Cleveland had to. Their window is now and maybe next year.
Maybe not even that.
Cubs will very likely be back next year; Cleveland has no such assurance. Stuff happens and probably will. Odds are they will sorely miss Frazier. But they did get a good run out of the deal and with their finances they had to go all in now.
As a Cubs fan, I think I was alone in desperately wanting the Cubs to trade Schwarber for Andrew Miller. As incredible of a hitter as Schwarber is, he still has to play a position and he still has to maintain health. As good as he has looked hitting, there is no guarantee he’ll ever be able to play the field 150 games a year and there is no guarantee he’ll ever catch again. Plus I didn’t like the idea of Miller pitching for someone else, I just didn’t think it would be against the Cubs in the World Series.
At his highest level, he’s a masher who plays LF capably enough to not hurt you for a full season of ABs. At worst, he’s a solid strong side of a platoon bat and a huge defensive liability. That’s a big gap in outcomes. Even if you split the difference, I still think 2.5 seasons of Andrew Miller was worth it. Miller is unlike any other reliever in the game. He is the Kershaw of relief pitching. He has a skill set that can effectively shorten games to 7 innings and his contract is absurdly cheap relative to what Chapman and Jansen will get this winter.
Obviously it is too late now and it’ll be a few seasons before we know which of the two is the more valuable player over that time, but I wish that was the trade that had been made. Especially if the Cubs then have to spend a bunch of money signing a Jansen/Chapman in FA this winter.
It’s a favorite theme of analytics writers to criticize bullpen usage with regard to leverage. And most of the time it’s right on. However what this article really shows is August hasn’t followed the Cubs very closely. (One challenge of being a national writer.)
“… Aroldis Chapman, Hector Rondon, and Pedro Strop, the three most important Cubs relievers during the regular season” might have been true in August but isn’t true now. Rondon hasn’t been right for a couple of months, particularly since he got hurt. Strop missed the last 6 weeks of the season and threw a few garbage innings the last week. Meanwhile Edwards is striking out 13 per 9 innings (and his season totals are inflated by one terrible outing), Wood hadn’t allowed a run in 15 appearances, and Montgomery has been effective in relief. Rondon and Strop are both good enough to make the playoff roster, but they aren’t the two most important non-Champman relievers in the pen.
Maddon WANTS to use Edwards, Montgomery, and Strop in high leverage situations plus Wood as a LOOGY (or for two outs). I think he’s done that with the exception of Grimm Friday night (which worked). The problem is Wood and Edwards haven’t pitched as well as the Indians bullpen.
Interesting post, thank you.
It’s also worth noting that Grimm came into the game in a very high leverage situation in Game 3. Specifically, the bases were loaded with one out in the 5th inning of a tie game and Lindor at the plate. The Leverage Index per Fangraphs’ play log was 3.40. Grimm isn’t a bad reliever – 3.28 FIP this year and 3.31 FIP projection – but the Cubs’ usage of Grimm this postseason indicates that the team views him as something like their 5th to 7th best reliever. I think that Game 3 was the first time this postseason that Grimm entered a game when the Cubs weren’t behind.
The usage of Grimm in that situation ended up flying under the radar because the Cubs got the best possible result for them: a Lindor double play ended the inning. The contrast with Cleveland was dramatic, however, as that’s the sort of situation where Miller comes in for the Indians. In fact, Miller would likely come in before the situation reached the point of bases loaded, as happened in the bottom of that same inning when Miller came in with 2 outs and a runner on 2nd.
Interesting comments from Maddon about Chapman. I can’t help wondering, did they acquire a guy who’s a self-centered ass, and now his self-centered-assness is hurting the team?
I don’t have the impression that he’s self-centered ass. I have the impression that he has his way of doing things and he’s going to be less effective if he can’t do things that way.
I don’t have the impression that he’s a self-centered ass. I have the impression that he has his way of doing things and he’s going to be less effective if he can’t do things that way.
I’m sure he’s got a routine, but another guy with the same starting point might react differently. If he is abusive, which I think is more than coin-flip odds, those people tend to center everything around themselves without even realizing it.
A lot of yankee players seemed sad to see chapman go and.not just professionally. I don’t think they’d react that way mmif he was just selfish.
I kind of feel it falls on Maddon, he’s always been a huge player first manager. That’s why everyone has loved him that has played for him. But it’s still his call to get him out there when they need him most. I’m not disparaging Maddon at all, I think he’s great but he’s the boss so to speak. The blame can’t automatically fall on Chapman until he’s been sent out out of his “comfort zone” (if that’s really what the issue is) and failed, then created drama about it.
Great article, I was noticing what the Indians were doing, but did not notice what the Cubs were doing. Bochy historically with the Giants in the playoffs had been quick to go to the bullpen, willing to go to his best, Affeldt, when necessary, or pitch his closer in the 8th if that was when the real save leveraged situation was happening. Or to pitch them more than one inning when necessary, or to bring in starters when it is do or die time. I had not seen managers do that before him.
He also usually trusted the proven vets over the young guys, as the rep he got says, but he would thrust guys in there when he thinks they are ready, like Strickland in 2014. Romo is also a great example, back of draft guy with no pedigree and he made it all the way to be the closer. For that matter, Casilla too, A’s gave up on him, their pitching brain trust didn’t realize that he was working on a new pitch, and the Giants got him for nothing, one of their best relievers during this era. They weren’t handed the great jobs right away, but did work their way up. One could call this a fluke, but when Sabean gets flukes like Casilla, Torres, Blanco, Petit, regularly, suggests that there is something there.
That contrasts with what the Cubs fans notes about how Maddon is going with the hot hand vs the better vets. Admittedly, if those pitchers are not right, you can’t use them.
But that brings up the question of why they aren’t right. If it is mechanics then they had plenty of time to fix it. If they are still hurt, then were they brought back too early? Maybe Maddon would have used their better guys if they were right, but as the Cubs fan noted, hard for anyone but Cubs fans to know what Maddon normally does.
But if they are that bad, why are they on the roster? Giants were pretty ruthless about leaving useless guys off the playoff roster or skipping a starter’s turn in the playoff rotation- people remember Zito getting left off, but don’t remember that Bumgarner was skipped in 2012 or that Sandoval was sat down during the 2010 World Series so that Renteria could start. Only useless roster spot I can recall is Lincecum in 2014, hardly used at all. Oh, and Lincecum in 2012, relegated to bullpen, after starting all year, is another example of ruthlessness, at that point he was not far from his glory years.
This suggests that perhaps the Cubs did not do enough, they should have tried more for good setup men, like Will Smith, if they were not sure Strop and Rondon would be ready for the playoffs. Because, as nicely as Edwards and Woods had been doing, regression to the mean was a possibility unless the Cubs were sure that their improvement was due to a new pitch or better pitch selection.
Interesting questions to ponder in the aftermath of this World Series.
Your talking about past-bochy. Present-bochy seems to be different. For some reason.
He is treating games as if there is 13 innings or he is going to make 8 changes in the 8th. bench bats just sit and relievers too.
Did he manage like this in the regular season?
Not really, If you noticed they haven’t used any of their versatility yet.
He does seem to be very passive, I guess is the word.
To me the difference is simple. Miller is versatile because he chooses to be and does not care about the save stat that pays (possibly because he already did get paid). Chapman is not versatile and chooses not to change his approach. Team first versus me first.
I thought Maddon was going to have no slack in Lackey’s leash after his usage of him in the NLCS. Given that the Cubs were up against Kluber and already down 2-1 in the series, I was assuming almost any trouble at any point meant going to the bullpen. That didn’t happen. I know the 2nd inning had some defensive problems, but once the score was 2-1 with the heart of the order coming up in the 3rd, it was time to move on from Lackey.
With the prospect of having to face Kluber, Miller than Adams, you gotta figure you’d be lucky to score 3 runs in the game. And without a top notcher starter on the mound, it should have been a once through the order plan with Lackey. Maybe twice if game situation gives you that options (like facing Lindor/Santana/Ramirez with no one on base and the lead). But he was left in for Lindor, the game went to 3-1, and then Lackey was left in to pitch to the biggest threats in the lineup with a runner on. Maddon didn’t get burned, but it was a mistake.
The craziest thing was that Lackey’s spot came up to lead off the third and Joe let him go up there for the virtually automatic out, with a decent long relief option (Montgomery or Wood, I forget) still warming up in the pen. Then the Cubs put two men on with two out against Wild Kluber, who got Zobrist to strike out and end the threat.
Maddon’s quote was from after Saturday’s Game Four loss, not Friday as currently stated.
One thing about Madden’s analysis. If he believes that the guys in his bullpen are not capable of the flexible usage that the Indians bullpen demonstrates, then they don’t belong. The World Series is a whole different ball game than the 162. And as well, those players have to wonder… did Joe just ‘dis me?… He doesn’t think I can take the ball when my boys need me?! I wonder.
> Miller […] has the ability to throw north of 40 pitches unphased
Unless Miller is composed of particles that occasionally shift out of phase with the rest of the world and nonetheless don’t compromise his pitching, you’re looking for “unfazed”.
Unphased is the correct term for Miller’s slider.