South Side Sox ‏@SouthSideSox 1m1 minute ago

 

White Sox relievers have now struck out the side in 1-2-3 innings twice as many times as they did all of last year.

I heard an analyst on the score last night say he has stuff so good it's like a video game. I hadn't seen anything like his stuff the game before last.

I always thought Robertson was really good. What amazes me is Zach Duke turning into a quality reliever after being somewhere between a stiff and mediocre for 8 years.

I always thought Robertson was really good. What amazes me is Zach Duke turning into a quality reliever after being somewhere between a stiff and mediocre for 8 years.

 

He did an amazing job re-inventing himself.

South Side Sox ‏@SouthSideSox 1m1 minute ago

 

White Sox relievers have now struck out the side in 1-2-3 innings twice as many times as they did all of last year.

 

Sometimes I think having a guy like that makes the others better just be presence.

 

he is no Aroldis Chapman, but he'll do.

Why didnt the Yankees keep him? It seems like he would have been the perfect transition into another good run of a closer post-Rivera.

Because most of the analytics out there will tell you that a closer can be found anywhere and aren't really all that important. They have the least effect on winning because they don't pitch very much. He shouldn't be pitch the 9th inning anyway because that is not the most leveraged situation in the game. He is really being used improperly this season.

 

(I don't really need to add the green do I?)

Because most of the analytics out there will tell you that a closer can be found anywhere and aren't really all that important. They have the least effect on winning because they don't pitch very much. He shouldn't be pitch the 9th inning anyway because that is not the most leveraged situation in the game. He is really being used improperly this season.

 

(I don't really need to add the green do I?)

 

So old.

So old.

I know I am. I think that is sone of the issue.

 

On a serious note, you won't be saying that when reliivers are failing and these stats come out again.

I know I am. I think that is sone of the issue.

 

On a serious note, you won't be saying that when reliivers are failing and these stats come out again.

 

I won't because I'll actually clarify. No one says relievers don't matter. They DO say that reliever performance is volatile and therefore money can be invested more safely in other areas. That's a huge difference.

 

What's old is people making blanket criticisms based on incorrect information. Don't accuse me of flip-flopping. I'm always open to changing my opinion based on new information and will always admit when I'm wrong, but I don't have any sort of agenda beyond trying to be correct.

Robo is good

I won't because I'll actually clarify. No one says relievers don't matter. They DO say that reliever performance is volatile and therefore money can be invested more safely in other areas. That's a huge difference.

 

What's old is people making blanket criticisms based on incorrect information. Don't accuse me of flip-flopping. I'm always open to changing my opinion based on new information and will always admit when I'm wrong, but I don't have any sort of agenda beyond trying to be correct.

Sorry , I should not have used the term you. I didn't mean you as the person. I meant to use it as a general term for the SABR and analytics that do say this frequently. The group often says that spending a great deal of money on relivers is a poor way to spend money due to their relative lack of importance. They dont effect the game much as they don't throw many innings and using them at the beginning of the 9th is wrong because the true leverage situations happen when someone is on base.

 

If had this very discussion on this board for a decade.

 

Again I apologize as I didn't mean the you as as a person but as the group. I can't remember if you were actually one of the people in those discussions.

Sorry , I should not have used the term you. I didn't mean you as the person. I meant to use it as a general term for the SABR and analytics that do say this frequently. The group often says that spending a great deal of money on relivers is a poor way to spend money due to their relative lack of importance. They dont effect the game much as they don't throw many innings and using them at the beginning of the 9th is wrong because the true leverage situations happen when someone is on base.

 

If had this very discussion on this board for a decade.

 

Again I apologize as I didn't mean the you as as a person but as the group. I can't remember if you were actually one of the people in those discussions.

 

No big deal, no need to apologize.

 

What I'm trying to clarify is that the reason SABR-ish people don't advocate big money on relievers isn't because of lack of importance, it's because they're very risky assets. The list of relievers that stay good for more than a couple years is really small. Yes, SABR-ish people will always argue that a starter's value is much higher than that of a reliever just based on raw innings, but even fWAR gives credit to relievers for high-leverage situations.

 

That said, I have no problem with the Robertson deal at all, because sometimes you have to take risks if you're going to win. It was such a crazy hole for this team, it jhad to be done. And Hahn earned himself the financial leeway to buy a closer at market rate by already having his core locked up to below-market extensions.

He's so good. Should get even better too, as his ERA is currently under-performing his FIP by 0.39.

He's so good. Should get even better too, as his ERA is currently under-performing his FIP by 0.39.

 

That's what happens with a K/9 of 18.

 

For as shaky as he looked in spring, I doubt there's a single reliever in baseball who has looked more dominant.

I love how he's pitching, but I just hope it lasts. He did not look anywhere near this good last year, or any other year for that matter.

I love how he's pitching, but I just hope it lasts. He did not look anywhere near this good last year, or any other year for that matter.

One year his ERA was 1.08. He has a terrific strikeout per inning rate.

I'm not worried about Robertson. His command seems excellent. That will always be a big plus for him as our closer.

One year his ERA was 1.08. He has a terrific strikeout per inning rate.

 

His career K/9 is second highest all time for pitchers with more than 300 innings pitched.

Edited April 21, 201510 yr by lasttriptotulsa

His career K/9 is second lowest all time for pitchers with more than 300 innings pitched.

Don't you mean second highest?

Don't you mean second highest?

 

Doh! Of course I do.

I love how he's pitching, but I just hope it lasts. He did not look anywhere near this good last year, or any other year for that matter.

 

Only in the sense that NO ONE has ever looked this good over the course of an entire season. Robertson has been a top 5 reliever in the MLB for years now, plenty of precedent that this is for real. The question is when will it decay (which is a legit question), but not "is it true talent"?

Robertson has been a top 5 reliever in the MLB for years now, plenty of precedent that this is for real. The question is when will it decay (which is a legit question), but not "is it true talent"?

I wouldn't say that. Kimbrel, Chapman, Holland, Street, Papelbon, etc... but yes, I know he has true talent, but there's no way he can be this good for the rest of the year.

I wouldn't say that. Kimbrel, Chapman, Holland, Street, Papelbon, etc... but yes, I know he has true talent, but there's no way he can be this good for the rest of the year.

 

What? You really think he can't go through the entire season with a 0.00 ERA, 0.40 WHIP and 18.0 K/9?

What? You really think he can't go through the entire season with a 0.00 ERA, 0.40 WHIP and 18.0 K/9?

Ya I'm thinking he ups his k/9 a bit. 18 isn't that great.