The Dodgers Can’t Afford Their Bullpen Problem
The biggest story to come out of the Dodgers camp yesterday was the acquisition of Chase Utley from the Phillies for two minor-league prospects, Darnell Sweeney and John Richy. While Utley will no doubt provide support to a middle infield that is thinner with the injury to Howie Kendrick, there was another event going on in Oakland yesterday — a major-league baseball game, in fact — and one important part of the Dodgers pitching staff once again reminded us that it too might be in need of some help.
I refer to the current state of the Los Angeles bullpen, which has, by a multitude of measures, accounted for among the worst performances in baseball during the 2015 season. On Wednesday, the Dodgers were “swept” in a two-game series by the 53-69 Oakland A’s; this was made especially painful to players and fans alike, I can imagine, considering Clayton Kershaw started the opening game of the series.
Kershaw was able to go only seven innings during that game, exiting with the score tied, and he handed the ball over to a multitude of relievers who displayed various levels of ineffectiveness. That game resulted in a 10-inning Oakland walk-off win — with the bullpen blowing a three-run lead — while the second and final game of the series saw them unable to keep the A’s close in the final frames of another tight contest. The two-game series was probably an encapsulation of a lot of what Dodgers fans have become painfully accustomed to.
Today, we’ll highlight some numbers related to the Dodgers pen, and see what options the Dodgers might have in bolstering the current weakest part of their team.
We have two statistics here, created in 2010, called Shutdowns and Meltdowns. They’re a way of measuring a given amount of win probability added or subtracted (.06 or 6% WPA, to be exact) during a relief pitcher’s performance, and they help outline the struggles we’re talking about. First, let’s take a look at the 10 bullpens in baseball that have the most Meltdowns, i.e. occasions on which a relief pitcher lowered his team’s chances of winning by at least 6%:
We have a lot of teams with bad records here — teams that are rebuilding, teams that sold off many of their bullpen pieces during the year, and teams who are far outside the playoff picture. Then we have the Cubs, Dodgers, and Twins. Obviously, Los Angeles is the only team on this list that is leading their division, and that’s not exactly a coincidence; you have to go all the way to the Astros at 17th to find the next division leader. It’s hard to win a lot of games if you have your high-leverage pitchers decreasing the probability of winning by more than 6% very often.
The Cubs also have the third-most Shutdowns in baseball, which tells us that we should probably account for positive performances in relation to those negative performances. With that in mind, let’s look at the ratio of Shutdowns to Meltdowns, i.e. how often relief pitchers on a team shutdown the opposition for every meltdown they accounted for. Again, take a look at the bottom 10:
Again, there are only two potential playoff teams on this list, and only the Dodgers are leading their division. Getting just over one-and-a-half positive relief performances per negative one is not what a potential playoff team should be hoping for, but it’s currently what the Dodgers have gotten this season. I’d be remiss if I didn’t mention the playoff-hungry Blue Jays while we’re here, but their steps toward remedying some of their late-inning pitching issues was well documented last week.
Now we know the Dodgers bullpen has been prone to melting down. And, as it turns out, when they meltdown, they generally do so in a big way — and often during the clutch: the Dodgers are currently second-worst in the majors in total bullpen Win Probability Added (with -4.09), second only to the Athletics. Considering the A’s have had a historically bad year pitching in high-leverage situations (their total bullpen WPA is -7.07, which would be the fourth-lowest mark of any team since 2000), this sort of company is not the type a team wants to keep.
That discussion leads directly into the impact bullpen meltdowns have on Win-Loss records. The struggles of the Athletics bullpen was well documented in the context of BaseRuns on these digital pages by Dave a few months ago, and the season-long impact of bullpen over- or underperformance on Win-Loss records has been written about extensively. Now we can apply those ideas directly to the Dodgers here by looking at our BaseRuns standings, which is interactive and can be scrolled over for more information:
Their are two main culprits in the Dodgers’ underperformance of their context-neutral record by five games: one is the bullpen, as we’ve outlined above (seen most acutely in the Dodgers’ 16-20 record in one-run games), and the other is a lack of timely hitting. These two factors have helped keep the NL West race tight, allowing the Giants (who only have a -1 BaseRuns/actual Win-Loss record difference) to keep touch-tight on their division rivals.
What is to be done with the Dodgers bullpen for the stretch run? Externally, there simply aren’t many true upgrades available for Friedman and Co. Any available relievers might cost them more than they’re interested in giving up, or simply wouldn’t be big enough upgrades to merit a trade. Internally, Chris Hatcher has been great since returning from the disabled list, and should assume more of the setup work behind closer Kenley Jansen. Pedro Baez and J.P. Howell aren’t as bad as they’ve been for the past two weeks (5.14/5.40 ERA, respectively), and Jim Johnson isn’t going to post a .650 BABIP for his entire Dodgers career.
Manager Don Mattingly seems to shy away from using Jansen in any situation besides the ninth inning (Jansen has appeared in the eighth inning just twice this season), which is something he may want to reconsider in the future when games are on the line. The good news? The bullpen is very well rested. Per JP Hoonstra, only two relievers on the Dodgers are on pace for 60 or more innings: Howell and Yimi Garcia. That bodes well for the stretch run, but well rested and effective are two different things. The Dodgers bullpen probably isn’t as bad as it has been for the past few weeks. They also can’t afford to be this bad for any longer.
Owen Watson writes for FanGraphs and The Hardball Times. Follow him on Twitter @ohwatson.
Kind of strips out the “Colletti is bad/Zaidi is good” narrative established back in April after a few weeks of the season, right?
http://www.foxsports.com/mlb/just-a-bit-outside/story/los-angeles-dodgers-bullpen-joel-peralta-nicasio-garcia-baez-rodriguez-hatcher-liberatore-042215
Thanks for saving me the effort to find that.
Nope, no predisposition to laud every little good outcome by a sabre GM as the product of cutting edge player evaluation abilities. Nothing to see here, move along.
Colletti tried to trade for a reliever with a known shoulder problem, and was mad that the Dodgers analytics department prevented him from doing so, even when that pitcher went on to get hurt and be unavailable for the playoffs.
This isn’t bias. This is recognizing that analytics work, and that ignoring analytics is worse that embracing them.
If you think gushing over a 3 week sample of relief pitching is a way to prove that analytics work, then you probably don’t understand them yourselves.
Everything does not have to be a knee jerk defense of a sabre GM. THAT’S A BIG PART OF WHAT DRIVES PEOPLE CRAZY. Cameron wrote a silly fanboy ode to a GM crush. Just because he wrote it about someone you admire shouldn’t change that fact at all.
Loosen up a little and learn to laugh at stuff like that. You’ll enjoy life more, not feeling like people are just out to get your heroes.
So, you can see fanboy bias in that article if you want. I don’t completely disagree with the notion that Cameron and other stat-inclined writers will judge a saber GM’s moves more favorably with less information. However, the basis Cameron used to write that article hasn’t proved to be small-sample fanboy fantasies, it has proved to be correct.
He based his argument on K%, BB%, and GB%. While this is by no mean advanced analytics, one of the basic things analytics have shown is is that those things stabilize to a pitcher’s talent much faster than other stats, and that you can therefore use them in a more predictive way. Dodgers bullpen ranks:
K%: 2nd
BB%: 10th
K-BB: 1st
GB%: 29th, lol, but
SIERA: 4th
So, nothing Cameron said in that article has since been invalidated, because he used stats that are relatively stable. What has happened is that the results haven’t been there. So, is your problem with Cameron, or is it with the idea that the basis he and I are using to evaluate the bullpen are faulty?
Clearly nobody is arguing with you that “analytics aren’t important”. They are obviously incredibly important, but that’s not the only thing that matters. Scouting, choosing when to “go for it”, arguing/discussing trades, etc are all very important. Yeah, they might not be as “sexy” to talk about, but they definitely matter.
Which reliever was a Coletti target?
Not really, if you look beyond superficial stats to evaluate them. And, without seeing the results, it’s pretty hard to look at the two processed used by either GM and think the Colletti had the better process.
I’m not saying Colletti had a good process. But this bullpen has problems, and Dave had the brilliant idea of using super SSS data to claim that the Dodgers did something excellent and advance the silly “saber GM is better/Colletti is a dumb dumb” narrative. Their recent SSS data says the bullpen pretty terrible. The truth, boring as it may be, is somewhere in between. This was never an elite bullpen, nor is it this terrible. Even the numbers used in this article are a bit misleading.
Using a “top 10 MD” leaderboard is a bit dishonest, as the Red Sox, 15th in baseball in meltdowns, are very close at 53. The “terrible” Dodgers pen is pretty damn close to the middle of the pack when looked at like that.
And looking at SD/MD ratio is somewhat useful (the Dodgers are a few percentage points close to 20th, but there’s a good gap between 20 and 19, so call them bottom third in SD/MD ratio). However, it also highlights which teams give their bullpens more opportunities. With Kershaw and Grienke constantly going 7-8 innings, the bullpen simply doesn’t need to be used as much.
Consider the difference in costs of those two bullpens.
If you think Dave was bad in his bias a Fangraphs article praising Friedman’s relief acquisitions compliments Howell and Peralta as ‘crafty veterans.’
^You guys sound salty cause your teams have some old skool turd in the FO
LOL, or how about this article? The part about the smart way they assembled a good bullpen is classic Cameron ejaculate.
http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/dodgers-upgrade-rotation-in-unexpected-intelligent-way/
yeah i’m sure you called it at the time that the pitchers the dodgers acquired in that deal would put up a collective 6 ERA, you really outsmarted those stat geeks.
“Sample size” is a concept completely lost on your, isn’t it?
There is a reason every FO in the country is using more and more analytics each year. It works.
I get that shutdowns and meltdowns are superior to the save, but why are we using them for analysis? They are not analytical tools, they are more like… narrative tools. They communicate the effect a pitcher had the team’s win probability, but it’s still a totally context-dependent result-based stat. It’s no different than backing up your argument with RBIs.
The bullpen has a bad ERA and a great SIERA. Their collective win probability added has a much more direct relationship with the former fact than the latter. The question is really, then, is that discrepancy going to continue? Should it have been foreseen? This bullpen was clearly assembled with a eye more towards the SIERA-type numbers, and in that way the bullpen has been assembled successfully. We also know that we should generally expect pitchers to regress to their SIERA. Are we going to diverge from this expectation, and why?
what you’re saying is completely true and I agree with it all. Would you rather have a bullpen with a Siera a bit above average or above the overall FIP/ERA, while getting Dave’s and holding games whether it be due to high strand rates, etc.
What I mean is would you deal with better reslurs or go with the better peripherals
edit SIERA below the ERA suggesting better performance than results is what inwas getting at.
I mean, I would prefer a replacement level team that lucks its way into the world series to a team that is great on paper and doesn’t win, as long as we’re choosing our outcomes. But, if you ask me after 81 games do I prefer to have a team that has to that point been a high-ERA/low-SIERA or low-ERA/high-SIERA team, then for the next 81 I take the low-SIERA team.
I’m open to the idea that the low-ERA team is preferable, but I would need an actual reason to choose that. I would love to have the Cardinals’ ridiculous strand rate, but until we know that is something they’re doing and not mostly luck, I’m not going to count on that as predictive.
It’s either luck or they have a wizard on retainer. I vote for luck.
As much as I appreciate data analysis as a way of evaluating performance, when I read your posts I detect a True Believer type of defensiveness. Sabre Sports has become a movement and, as such, you’re going to get strong adherents to the Saber Gospel that borders on cult-like devotion. The big problem with relying on SIERA or other metrics that assume future outcomes based on historical results is that, as in life, the only constant is change. Performances vary based on the decline of skills and varying levels of conditioning and preparation and just confidence and other psychological factors. The objective is not to assemble a great saber team, but a team that is judged by actual wins and losses. That is the goal, correct? …to actually score more points than your opponent and, subsequently, win the contest?
What you’re advocating is results oriented thinking, which is not recommended in fields with a lot of variance such as baseball.
Hawk Harrelson, is that you?
The team has a few decent bullpen options in OKC. including Mike Bolsinger, who pitched to a 2.83 ERA / 2.87 FIP in the majors over 16 starts this year and Zach Lee & Josh Ravin, both who struggled in a few major league innings but have been great for OKC.
I know all three of those guys will be on the roster in 10 days, but 10 days from now may be too late.
10 days from now is unlikely to be too late for a team currently in first place, with 5 of their 6 remaining games with their closest rival coming in September.
*7 remaining games
Clearly, of the Orioles and Tigers:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jK7q8icg8Nc
Dodgers could easily fix their bullpen problem either now or on September 1st by adding both Julio Urias and Jose De Leon to the 40 man roster (DFA 2 players) and calling them both up to pitch in the bullpen as their innings are limited. Jansen-Urias-JDL would be a great part of a late inning bullpen for one month + playoffs. Dodgers can afford to cut bait with likes of Jim Johnson etc…
Yeah, it probably won’t happen. But a good possible solution is out there.
I wouldn’t take it as a forgone conclusion that those guys will be effective in the major league bullpen, so I would hesitate to say “they could easily”. But, I would think at least one of them could thrive.
However, to the frustration of many fans, this front office has repeatedly espoused that they are not going to interfere with the development of their top prospects because of a supposed “crisis” with the MLB team. So, if they deem that those guys might be hurt by A) moving to the bullpen and B) pitching into October, longer than they ever have, then I wouldn’t expect to seem them.
Yes, that is exactly what they should do. Call up one or both of those guys and use them in late inning relief. Heck, even a few spot starts here and there too. Innings are still really low for Urias.
Can’t see them giving out late-season spot starts when they are fighting just to win the division. If they had a crisis of heath in the rotation, sure. But they are a SSS away from being a wild-card team – possibly enough reason not to be giving away starts to kids.
JP Hoornstra missed one. Jim Johnson has already accumulated 54 IP and is on pace for 72 2/3 (rounded down).
Mattingly can’t manage a bullpen – surprise. This team is a Ferrari rolling on Toyota Corolla tires.
Yet the Dodgers’ bullpen is 9th best by WAR and 5th best by xFIP. Curious.
And godawful by results!
Urias has only thrown 70 innings this year. Might he play a similar role to David Price on the 08 Rays?
I’d be more curious to know if the Dodgers would pitch Urias in a relief role if they call him up in Sept. All indications are that his Innings are fine (70 this year, 87 last year), so maybe they find a way to spot start him down the stretch to keep others in the rotation healthy.
Kershaw and Grienke and pray for rain, or something like that.
As a UVA alum, I was really hoping Josh Sborz would work his way up and possibly pitch relief for the Dodgers this season a la Finnegan last season
Newsflash: There is no “completely right” or “completely wrong” way of thinking. Sure, SIERA says this bullpen should be better, but ERA says they haven’t been. What about when you watch them on TV? Nope, still not good. Balls left over the plate plus the inability to get out of big situations is very troubling.
And this ugly bullpen does a lot of both.
I love the arguments of theoreticians when reality has the nerve to refute the concept. Smart guys basically admitting they have not much more than a more sophisticated way of flipping the proverbial coin.