Story of an Argument Gone Wrong
Posted: July 14th, 2010 | Filed under: Baseball | 78 Comments »
One of the joys of Twitter is that it only allows 140 characters. Now, it is true that you can get a lot into 140 characters. Look:
4 score + 7 years ago our fathers brought forth on continent a new nation conceived in liberty + dedicated 2 prop that all are created equal
Not quite as poetic as the original perhaps but if you can squeeze the American core into 140 characters, you can squeeze quite a bit in there.
But, well, we’re not all Lincoln as Prince. And so while, yes, you can get a lot into 140 characters, we mere mortals can also leave a lot out. This leads to misunderstandings. Tuesday night, while watching another All-Star Game that counts, I could not help but notice that we got quite a bit of Chicago reliever Matt Thornton in the seventh inning. American League manager Joe Girardi brought Thornton into the game in what was probably the highest leverage situation … seventh inning, runners on first and third, one out, American League leading 1-0.
Now, Matt Thornton is a very good middle reliever. No, he’s more than that — I don’t want anyone to miss the point again. He’s an excellent middle reliever. I’ve seen him pitch a lot, and I really like his game. He is the guy White Sox manager Ozzie Guillen will bring into the game in the seventh or eighth inning when his team needs an out (something the ninth too), especially when there’s a left-handed batter coming up, and double-especially when the team needs a strikeout. Thornton knows how to deliver the K. He and J.J. Putz and Bobby Jenks have been a big part of the White Sox stunning success this year.
But, I’m not going to lie to you: I don’t really want to see Matt Thornton pitch in a high-leverage situation in the All-Star game. Why? Because Matt Thornton is about the fourth or fifth most valuable pitcher on the Chicago White Sox. He is simply not as important or valuable as the starters. He has thrown 37 innings all year. He might be the best middle reliever in baseball — a tenuous title, to say the least* — but even if that’s true that makes him about the 27th or so most valuable pitcher in his own league.
*Last year, according to Baseball Reference, Matt Thornton had the highest WAR for any reliever with fewer than 10 saves. Here are the leaders in that category this decade:
2010: Daniel Bard.
2009: Matt Thornton
2008: Scott Downs
2007: Rafael Betancourt
2006: Joel Zumaya
2005: Hector Carrasco and Scot Shields
2004: Tom Gordon
2003: Brendan Donnelly
2002: Octavio Dotel
2001: Felix Hernandez
2000: Jeff Tam
Not one repeat. That gives you an idea how variable and unpredictable the middle-relief game is … or to put it another way, only one middle reliever in the decade managed a 2.0 WAR more than twice (Dotel did it three times). Middle relievers go hot and go cold. See: Affeldt, Jeremy.
Middle relief is a specialty position. It’s extremely important in day-to-day baseball, but, to me at least, the All-Star Game is not day-to-day baseball. It’s a game for the best. And in a league that has Lee, Liriano, Lester, King Felix, Verlander, Price, Greinke, Weaver, Sabathia, Pettitte and many other great, great starting pitchers, I’m sorry, I don’t want Matt Thornton pitching in the most important moment of the game. I don’t buy that having that “experience” of pitching the seventh inning with runners on is of great value, not in this kind of game. Give me the best pitcher.
Hey, look, if I was a manager of a Major League Baseball team, I would love to have Matt Thornton, and I would use him often, and I would tell people that he was the guy who held my pitching staff together — I fully appreciate that he’s a really good pitcher. But that doesn’t make him the guy I would pitch in the seventh inning of a 1-0 the All-Star Game.
Well, of course, you can’t get all that across in Twitter. So I wrote this:
If this game actually matters, why was Matt Thornton pitching with the ga,me on the line.
Yeah, I had that extra comma in “game.” As you already know, Thornton walked Marlon Byrd and gave up the bases loaded double to Brian McCann that gave the National League its first All-Star victory since 1996.
Well, this Tweet inspired a whole lot of people to fury. Suddenly, I was flooded with responses from people who wanted me to understand that Matt Thornton is “awesome.” That was the word that kept coming, again and again. Awesome. Look, I misuse the word “awesome” all the time. Someone in a restaurant will bring a me a Diet Coke refill and I will say “awesome.” So, I appreciate the devaluing of the word … but Matt Thornton is most definitely not awesome. Awesome means extremely impressive or daunting, inspiring great admiration, apprehension or fear. Albert Pujols is awesome. Tim Lincecum is awesome. That’s about it. Matt Thornton is a very good relief pitcher who is having roughly the same kind of year that Darren Oliver is having in Texas. Which led to my next tweet:
People tweeting that Matt Thornton is awesome? Huh? He’s like a younger Darren Oliver … Where are Darren’s All-Star games?
Well, this was too much. Suddenly, I was comparing Matt Thornton with Darren Oliver? Now, the fury REALLY came in — comparisons of Thornton and Oliver’s xFIP (Thornton’s is better), their strikeout rates (Thornton’s is higher), their last three years (Thornton has been better). And now, my own Twitter impulses had taken me to a place that I really did not want to go, trying to make the argument that Oliver is about the same as Matt Thornton. Look, I thought, Oliver has pitched more innings, has allowed fewer hits, has a better WHIP, lower ERA, higher WAR according to B-R and has struck out 43 in 39 innings which isn’t shabby …
… only I don’t think Darren Oliver has been better than Thornton. His batting average on balls in play suggests he has been luckier. And anyway I DO NOT CARE about the differences in quality between Matt Thornton and Darren Oliver. The argument had gotten away from me. I wouldn’t have wanted Darren Oliver pitching there either.
My only point had been that as a baseball fan, I do not want to see a middle reliever, no matter how good, pitch with the game on the line in the All-Star Game. I just don’t. I’m not necessarily overjoyed by the way managers use their staffs, but I know the realities of the game — managers put their best pitchers in the rotation, and they put their best reliever in the closer role, and they take the best of the rest (or the young pitchers they are trying to break in) and put them in middle relief. Some thrive in that role. And their value tends to be undervalued by everyone … including me.* But that doesn’t make it interesting in any way.
*And including the teams themselves … Matt Thornton will only make $2.25 million this year … roughly a third of what Bobby Jenks will make. The club has an option for him at $3 million next year, and they will undoubtedly pick that up too.
In the end, of course, none of this matters. It’s the pointless All-Star Game. And no self-respecting writer should waste 1,283 words second guessing a manager for using Matt Thornton — that’s what Twitter is for. Now, second-guessing a manager for not using Alex Rodriguez in the ninth inning, well, that’s a whole other thing.
Loading ...
Circle me, Mark Redman.
“Last year, according to Baseball Reverence . . .”
Reverence–I like it!
I would have preferred to see Alex Rodriguez pitching than Matt Thornton. And how terrible does the AL Manager have to feel knowing he’s about to bat, in order, Ty Wigginton, John Buck and Ian Kinsler. That isn’t even a very good lineup in the NL Central – let alone for the AL All-Stars.
word
argue with your parents, your wife, or with god….but people, why argue with joe posnanski?
I thought Byrd deserved more credit for working that walk. First AB of the game against a guy throwing mid 90s, and you go down 0-2, and still work a walk. And then you score from first? Nice game for Byrd, who really is having a nice season.
Circle me, Eric Plunk!
Agreed, sort of, Joe, except Thornton is better than Jenks, and I suspect Ozzie knows it. Nothing better for your team than to have an established closer getting those 3 out, 2 or 3 run lead saves, while the better, less established relief pitcher is getting the really important outs in the 7th and 8th innings of tied games and 1 run games.
I think we can agree Mariano would be the one reliever to throw with the game on the line.
Joe Girardi wasn’t up to the task of managing that roster last night. I’m not a big “blame the manager” guy either…..but ol’ Joe didn’t give his club that best shot at winning that one.
I agree that Girardi wasn’t up to managing last night but I give him a pass. I suspect that yesterday was a very difficult day for him (and the players) with the death of Steinbrenner. Methinks that Joe’s head was not in the game. What other reason could you give for not using Alex Rodriguez?
Among AL relievers, Thornton was 6th in Fangraphs WAR in 2008, 1st in 2009, and is first in 2010. Over the last 3 years, the only AL reliever with more WAR is Mariano Rivera, who was not available. Once all of the starters were used, the best option for a high leverage spot was Matt Thornton.
@9: I cant think of another pitcher (starters included) that I would rather have on the mound with everything in the balance. I would hope Felix, Price, Greinke et. al. could get the necessary out, but I KNOW Mariano would get the team out of the inning.
Gee whiz, Joe. Matt Thornton’s WAR is lower because he doesn’t pitch as many innings as starting pitchers. Tim Lincecum is a more impressive pitcher because he is able to do what he does over more innings per appearance.
But Matt Thornton’s numbers per inning are much MUCH better than Tim Lincecum’s, for instance. Better than Roy Halladay. Better even than Cliff Lee or Josh Johnson.
Matt Thornton has 12 k/9 and 4 k/bb. That is very very good. We’re talking about bringing a guy in for one inning, not his Wins Against Replacement over an entire season. Maybe you don’t “want to see him.” I can understand that. But to argue that it’s a stupid move when Thornton, as a middle reliever, puts up some of the best per-inning numbers in baseball, just makes no sense.
I think a better point would be to wonder why the AL’s worst starting pitcher was in there to start the 7th inning with a 1-0 lead.
Other than the fact that he pitches for the manager’s team that is.
“Other than the fact that he pitches for the manager’s team that is.”
All the pitchers got in the game, didnt they? And the players, not Girardi, put Hughes on the team. And considering the only player who did not get in was from that manager’s team, I think your comment is off base.
@15
Fausto Carmona started the 7th inning???
Basically I agree that I don’t want to see a middle RP pitching in the ASG but…
First off, Manuel tried to give the edge back to the AL by bringing in Young to hit for Ethier – who just happens to hit LHP better than Young, so it wasn’t just the AL that left me wondering if the managers thought the game really mattered. (I’d say the NL is lucky that McCann was Manuel’s last catcher or he’d have not been allowed to hit either.)
Second, having watched the ASG a lot of years, however, I am also not really happy to see great starters brought into a situation with runners on, middle of an inning. It doesn’t always end badly but more often than it would if he had been the starter and in the game all along.
Face it, the nature of the game doesn’t allow for starters to be left out there as long as they are succeeding, which means that they are going to be used in situations they don’t like.
Bringing SPs in at start of (many) innings is a way to deal with that issue but if all you have are SPs, then you have to make the right choice as to which can handle first and third with 1 out. Not all do as well in those situations even when they have been in from the start.
So it seems clear to me that you need a pitcher or 2 who works in those situations routinely and who has been doing well THIS YEAR. Which means I don’t expect them to do the same next year but as ASG manager I don’t really care either.
Not 4 or 5 of them though, and not all closers either, some of whom are really bad unless they start the inning – for whatever reason.
@14: Do you think Lincecum’s (or Lee’s, or Josh Johnson’s) numbers might, just might, be a bit better if they only had to pitch one inning at a time?
I got into a big Twitter fight with Orioles fans about why it would be a really stupid idea to pick Jason Berken instead of Nick Markakis. Their basic argument was that Berken was much better than expected, while Markakis was as expected.
Off the subject, Joe, but I thought you had to know:
I research 19th century baseball, and have found an 1861 player named Springstein.
@16 – No, not all the pitchers got into the game.
I think there’s a better argument for using Thornton to START that inning, considering the lineup of closer behind him than to throw Hughes in there.
If you’re talking about trying to win the game that is. Whether that’s the point is another discussion entirely.
As for the whole “why didn’t he use Arod” thing, I must admit it made me laugh. I remember the ASG where the only player not used was Pujols – not even in the last inning down by a run with the bases loaded and 2 outs.
Ironically, it was his own manager who left him out too but with less of a reason than Girardi had. LaRussa had a reason – he always has a reason – but it was a stupid reason. Girardi’s problem – if the Arod need for rest is a true concern – was that he didn’t just pick someone else in the first place.
The NL has been plagued by bad managing and bad choices for the last decade. About time that the AL gets their shot at them. Of course, it’d be nice to see the best go against the best but…
2001: Felix Hernandez
not bad for a 15 year old!
@19, @Mitch:
Sure, they might be. In fact I’ll go so far as to say they probably be better if they only had to pitch one inning.
But they don’t pitch one inning and their numbers are not as good. We can infer all we like, but at the end of the day, who has the better per-inning numbers?
I’m not necessarily saying that Thornton SHOULD have been out there (certainly Rivera would have been a better choice) but to argue that a starting pitcher is a unilaterally better choice because they have a higher WAR due to their larger number of innings logged and because they MIGHT be as good as Thornton if they only had to pitch a single inning (absent evidence) seems to me to be a pretty far leap, no?
Not all the pitchers got in the game. Soria didn’t for one.
Pretty rough night for Girardi. Didn’t go to closers when he could have, didn’t have a runner available for Ortiz, didn’t use A-Rod at all.
It’s kinda weird that in the last four ASGs we’ve had situations where Albert Pujols and Alex Rodriguez were available to hit in the bottom of the 9th as either the tying or winning run and neither one of them was used.
What 19 said. When Lincecum was coming up, there was talk about making him a reliever, and people thought that if they made him a reliever, he might be the best reliever (non-Mo division) in the game.
@Chris W
Essentially Thornton’s WAR is lower because he’s not good enough to be a starter.
Joe’s point again is not that Thornton is a bad pitcher. His point is that when you have the best starting pitchers and the best closers on one team, why is a middle reliever coming in?
Joe’s main point – at least that I took from this – is that it can be hard to effectively communicate with a limited amount of characters/words and it is a terrific point.
In general, the net doesn’t make for a great place to communicate. Take this site which has a lot of people making good to excellent points in response to an excellent writer. Hardly any moronic spam to wade through here at all and yet there really rarely is a true conversation, even here.
The net makes people think they need to be terse for some reason, which means that even emails are not particularly effective ways to communicate. In the past people wrote lengthy letters to their friends and knew they had to communicate well because otherwise they didn’t communicate at all. There was no “I’ll see him/her later today.”
Of course there is also no “I’ll never meet that (fill-in-the-blank) at all so who cares?” attitude either. The other thing the net does is provide anonymity to those who like being jerks and to those of us who don’t but who nonetheless fall prey to the anonymity from time to time.
So the net’s general nature added to letter/word limits does indeed make a true argument a tough thing to have in modern society, leading to far more angry, terse, insulting exchanges.
Of course all that I just said is exceedingly ironic since the net is also the greatest method of communicating we’ve ever had. You can talk to and listen to anyone in the entire world with access to a computer and you CAN DO IT NOW. Amazing, amazing technology – wouldn’t it be nice if we all used that and took the time to construct and deconstruct arguments instead of tweeting?
@26
…and if Don Slaught had never played catcher he might have led the league in hitting. Lincecum would have been a great reliever. Hell, his peripherals as they stand would be pretty excellent for a reliever. But he doesn’t strike out 10+ per 9. And he doesn’t have a ~1.000 WHIP. He just doesn’t. I mean, maybe he would if he’d been a reliever his whole career. And maybe if he had become a reliever over the offseason he would this year. But he just doesn’t.
That doesn’t mean that Thornton is unequivocally a better 1 inning pitcher than Lincecum or anyone on either roster, for that matter. It just means that Thornton’s not unequivocally worse because his WAR is lower.
@27, @ Chris C
You’re right. You’re 100% right. But we’re not debating whether Thornton should have started the game, are we?
“His point is that when you have the best starting pitchers and the best closers on one team, why is a middle reliever coming in?”
Suddenly Joe cares about which relievers are getting saves? The same metrics he uses frequently to make arguments show that the best AL reliever in the game was Thornton. Girardi used him in the high leverage spot, and rightfully so.
Editor’s note: Sigh. I’m sorry. Sometimes even 7.270 characters are not enough to get the point across.
I don’t buy the Giradi’s head wasn’t in the game argument because of Steinbrenners passing. Wouldn’t you think he’d want to honor the passing of Steinbrenner by winning the game. It’s what George would of wanted.
@Mo
I also think it’s funny that people are worried about who’s a “starter” or a “closer” or a “middle reliever” rather than who is statistically the best pitcher in a short-inning situation. Isn’t making arguments based on arbitrary labels that the pitchers have no control over the argumentative weaponry of the Mike Celizics of the world rather than the reasoned, intelligent baseball fan?
@24 Chris W.
I don’t think infering that an elite starter would have better per inning numbers than Thornton is that much of a stretch. I think we all understand the differences in what a starter and middle reliever are trying to accomplish during a game.
So its not some off the wall crazy assumption that Tim Lincecum as a reliever would be better than Matt Thornton.
Re: Matt #14
I present the best pitcher in MLB history, Kevin Seitzer. 27k/game, 0 walks/game
If only he had pitched as many innings as Nolan Ryan, he’d be in the Hall of Fame.
@Chris C
I really didn’t say it’s an off the wall assumption. I said it’s an assumption. To act like it’s some fait accompli that a starter is better for one inning than a guy with better numbers than him is an assumption and I don’t see anyone showing any numbers to support that assumption.
Thornton is a very good pitcher. In terms of throwing one inning at a time for ~70 innings a season he’s an incredible pitcher. He’s not an exceptionally valuable pitcher because he can’t throw at a high level for a high number of innings. No one would dispute that. But he wasn’t being asked to throw a high number of innings last night. So I don’t see why so many people are up in arms based on the (absent evidence) assumption that because a pitcher is a starting pitcher all-star that that means they are better for one inning than a guy who has better one inning numbers.
For instance, Joe mentioned Andy Pettite as one of the more valuable pitchers on the AL. Granted, Andy Pettite is more valuable to a team over the course of a season (or hell, even over a game he starts) than Thornton. Who would argue that?
But does anyone really think that Pettite would be more effective out of the bullpen for one inning than Thornton? I recognize that Pettite wasn’t the alternative here, but I’m just trying to make a point. Would people really rather have Andy Pettite come out to pitch the eighth inning than Matt Thornton for any reason other than that “Andy Pettite is more fun to watch because he’s a star”? Really?
I’m sympathetic to Joe’s argument, but I wonder whether he isn’t implicitly committing the same sin that many of us routinely mock “old school” managers for committing–fetishizing the role of “closer” in general, and the save statistic in particular. I mostly follow the NL and don’t have a great feel for whether or not Thorton is a true bullpen ace (even if he tends not to get the save opportunities). But if he is, I have no problem with him being used in an All Star game in high leverage situation even if he is merely a “middle reliever” instead of a “closer.”
What if Kevin Seitzer had faced John Paciorek?
One thing I don’t understand is, when there are 40 or so players on each team, how they can only have two catchers. Part of Girardi’s problem was that the only two players he could have used Rodriguez to replace were Ortiz (the DH) and Beltre. With a third catcher he could have hit for Buck – who in fairness did get a hit, or what would have been a hit if there had been someone else on first base. Instead, perhaps inspired by Joe Torre’s 2002 squad with nine pitchers and five shortstops, Girardi had four third basemen on the team.
@Chris W
Who gave up the game winning hit?
Matt Thornton a guy with 14 career saves in 7 years (5 this year). Andy Pettite came out of the bullpen and struck out two guys and gave up a hit. Thorton only went .1 innings gave up a hit an earned run, allowed both of Hughes runners to score, and a walk.
Pettite proved last night that yes he was more valuable out the bullpen than Thornton.
This is the line in Joe’s post that I think is an incorrect assumption and, thus, makes the whole line of logic fail:
“but I know the realities of the game — managers put their best pitchers in the rotation, and they put their best reliever in the closer role, and they take the best of the rest (or the young pitchers they are trying to break in) and put them in middle relief. ”
Thornton is only a middle reliever, in my opinion, because Ozzie likes having his “established” closer (Jenks) getting the easy 3 out saves and uses his better pitcher (Thornton) in the higher leverage situations that arise with regularity in the 7th and 8th innings. No way is Bobby Jenks a better pitcher than Matt Thornton (this year).
Awesome column, Joe.
“Awesome column, Joe.”
Awesome comment is awesome.
@timmy
Really? That’s your argument? Thornton gave up a hit so that proves that he was a bad choice?
Anyone want to make an actual argument?
“I’m sorry, I don’t want Matt Thornton pitching in the most important moment of the game. I don’t buy that having that “experience” of pitching the seventh inning with runners on is of great value, not in this kind of game. Give me the best pitcher.”
You wouldn’t because the Excel spreadsheet doesn’t have a column for “experience”…that is why it fails. Girardi had 4 choices…Bailey, Valverde, Soriano, and Thornton. He put in the guy who is used to high-pressure situations with MEN ON BASE in the 7th and 8th innings. Those other three are closers who are used to entering the game at the beginning of the 9th. You have a problem with Thornton, but you never say who you would have pitched in that spot.
@Chris W.
I guess we’ll have to agree to disagree. Given the options of Lincecum, Halladay, or any other elite starter and Thornton for a relief appearance to win one game, Thornton would be my last resort every time.
“Matt Thornton will only make $2.25 million this year … ”
Only? That’s a lot of money for a guy whose only pitched 37 innings.
@Chris C
I don’t disagree with you, per se. I don’t even know that I wouldn’t prefer Halladay over Thornton (if available). I just take issue with the idea that in the situation Girardi faced it was inherently stupider to use Thornton over the cadre of closers available to him. Or that Thornton is inherently less of a pitcher because Ozzie chooses to use him in the 7th–regardless of whether his numbers are better than any number of closers, including those on the AS team with him.
That’s all. That’s what I take issue with in Joe’s post:
a.) His out of context use of WAR ignoring the fact that Thornton is simply not going to have as high a WAR as a starting pitcher or a closer, by definition
and
b.) His use of bullpen titles (closer vs. middle reliever) that a pitcher has no control over as an ex post facto dismissal of Thornton’s ability.
I get the feeling from reading his post that he was disappointed at Thornton entering the game because it doesn’t SEEM like Thornton should be pitching in the game…that he doesn’t FEEL like an All Star–which is probably true. Who knows if he even deserved to make the All Star team (although he’s almost certainly the best player on the White Sox this year per capita). But in terms of what he’s done the last three years, to discount out of hand because he’s “not a closer” and thus has a lower WAR seems patently ridiculous to me.
I couldn’t agree more.
Last night when I saw the game, I was like “who is Matt Thornton???” ….so I looked up his relief stats, and discovered a horror:
0.00 ERA when saving a game. (2010)
3.32 ERA in save situations. (2010)
2.04 ERA in non-save situations. (2010)
3.68 ERA vs NL (career)
1.545 WHIP in Angel Stadium (career)
So, despite being perfect when he can earn a save (aka 9th inning work), he’s still managed a semi-high relief ERA of 3.32 in save situations? So he’s likely junk in the middle innings when his team has a very close lead, compared to having a big lead or being behind. Yeah, his specialty is non-save sit’s.
So, clearly not someone you’d want on the mound for a 1-run ASG in the 7th situation.
@36 Chris W – Yes, I would rather have an elite starter come out of the bullpen than an elite middle reliever. Yes, I know Thorton’s per inning numbers are better, but I trust that the starter, knowing he’s only pitching to 3-4 batters, will pitch differently with less energy conservation than he would starting a game in the 1st. I also trust the elite starter to be more consistently great than the elite middle reliever. That’s just me. Maybe I’m wrong. We’ll never really know. The cherry on top, and maybe this is what Joe means to say, is that since it’s the All Star game, give me elite starter who is instrictly more valuable to his team and to the game.
Given Thorton’s recent history and success this year he was a fine option to pitch in that situation last night. My beliefs are forged by his failure. I believed when he came in, after he failed, and I would believe it if he succeeded. I would rather have the better pitcher pitch that inning.
This debate would never even occur if Liriano or Weaver or Hernandez or Niemann made the team over Phil Hughes.
SORIA should have been brought in till they get to the eighth.
@brad
I wasn’t asking about an elite starter. I was asking about a low K but generally effective starter like Pettite–who Joe mentioned as a patently better option than Thornton.
Thornton is nasty, and obviously uber-nasty against lefties (well sub-.200 BAA over the past 3 seasons). I was confused why he was pitching to so many righties and thought the inning was over as soon as he got to McCann. Something that I don’t think many have mentioned is that I’m fairly certain Holliday (on 2nd) stole the sign and let McCann know he was getting a fastball. He was sitting dead red–actually out front a bit–and after his little celebration jump once he got to 2nd base, he looked right toward the dugout (presumably at Holliday) and pointed, as if to say ‘thanks’. I’m obviously not saying there’s anything wrong with it, but merely that if McCann doesn’t get signs in that AB he’s probably toast and this discussion doesn’t take place.
@ Chris W – Then, yes, I wouldn’t go with Pettitte in that situation, but I would rather go with a high K elite starter. Again, I don’t have a problem with using Thorton, but I’d prefer he not even be on the team. In general, the top 10 starters in each league are much better pitchers than the top middle relievers. I’d rather see Grienke, Weaver, Liriano, Hernandez, or Niemann than Thorton and all of those pitchers are more deserving.
Joe:
I agree with your basic premise (I don’t want to see Thornton either), but you’re wrong on this one. If you truly believe that “managers put their best pitchers in the rotation,” then the all-star staff should be only starters. By your standards, even the worst starting pitcher on a team is better than the closer on that team. Thus, someone like Mariano Rivera should never be picked for an all-star game until after all of the Yankees’ starters have been selected. Personally, this sounds ludicrous.
I don’t want to see Thornton in an all-star game either, but your argument is flawed.
@52 – I’m not disagreeing with you and I may have observed this incorrectly, but the two pitches Thorton threw to McCann were, while quite fast, in hittable locations. The first McCann just missed hitting a grandslam and the second was thigh/belt high right down the middle.
Maybe McCann got the signs from Holiday, but those pitches, especially the one hit for the double were poorly placed.
@ Chris W
Surprised no one has mentioned this, but at what point does Joe compare Thornton to starters in the league based on WAR?
Joe says that Thornton is not as valuable as starters in the league. Then he goes on to list the highest WAR relievers in baseball over the last decade. That is the only time I see WAR used, and its purpose wasn’t to show how valuable Thornton is compared to others–its purpose was to illustrate how fluky and prone to fluctuation any reliever’s season is, and how, based on a run of 37 good innings, a pitcher can look better than he really is.
1. Can we get a complaint going about Girardi’s failure to pinch-run for the slowest human being on the planet in the 9th? No? Okay.
2. In terms of bizarre All-Star selections (this year only), Thornton ranks… well, I’m not entirely sure. Behind Arthur Rhodes and Omar Infante, certainly. Still ridiculous, of course.
It seems obvious to me that Girardi didn’t want to embarrass A-Rod by putting him in a position to make the last out of the game.
Even in the best of situations, there’s a 60 to 70% chance that A-Rod makes an out there. But a career starter coming in ice-cold to pinch-hit against one of the best relievers in baseball? Why would a good manager put his own player in that situation?
Oh yeah, to try to win the game. There’s that, I suppose.
@ Rob
I assumed when Joe asserted that Thornton was the 5th most valuable pitcher on the White Sox he was talking about WAR. If not, I guess I was mistaken.
[...] among “mainstream” sportswriters, few would call him a “radical.” His blog post today, in the aftermath of a series of Tweets and counter-Tweets regarding Matt Thornton‘s [...]
Thornton is probably one of the best five relievers in all of baseball. There’s an argument (a good argument) that he’s right there with Broxton and Rivera as one of the top 3 in all the land, too.
Mock the All Star game all you want — it’s a silly contest that has no meaning, despite the league’s attempt to insist otherwise. But mocking one of the best relievers in the game for the past three seasons seems a little beneath you, Joe. Or do you really not get that he’s better than Jenks and all the rest of the AL relievers not named Rivera?
@44 – Chris – I can’t speak for the relievers other than Andrew Bailey, but he certainly has been called in to pitch beyond the ’9th inning closer’ role.
And blown it at times too . . . but so has every reliever.
[...] who determine what matters. As a result, we get Verducci’s article, and we get JoePos’ “argument gone wrong” about Matt Thornton. Silly them and the way that they take their jobs seriously, while punks like [...]
If you are trying to save characters for twitting, wouldn’t you say “87 yrs” instead of “4 score + 7 years”?
When Joe says “Here are the leaders in that category this decade,” he give us the leaders for 2000 through 2010. Joe is the Nigel Tufnel of baseball bloggers: His decades go to 11.
Didn’t watch the game, so I have no context other than what’s been written above…
But, the All Star game is an exhibition. The point as I understand it is not necessarily to manage the “smartest” but to “exhibit”. It may have been the smartest move to pitch Matt Thornton but it’s not really in the spirit of the event (as I understand it anyway).
The point being that when I go to the All Star gallery I don’t go to see the Thornton’s work (even if he’s realllly good) I go to see a starter even if his work is being displayed in an abnormal situation.
Tom Verducci did a fine job on this topic over at SI.com. But I think these interesting moves earlier in the game led to this result: Wiggington, Swisher, and Beltre all in the game for Longoria; Konerko for Cabrera; Ortiz for Guerrero. Many of these were not changes intended to portray the game as if it mattered; they were changes to get every player in the game, especially Red Sox players who really could have used a day off, but not Yankee players who really needed that day off (ARod). Pulling Longoria who was 1 for 1with a walk also seems to be a move from stopping him from having a real confidence builder of a game. So Girardi seems to have managed to win the AL East, not to win the All Star game.
Similarly, the only pitcher to throw two full innings was from Tampa Bay. Pettitte only threw one inning, Hughes less than that, and Mariano didn’t even get in the game. Again, he seems to have managed his pitchers not to win the game, but to win the AL East.
Sure, a strong argument could be made that the AL East has the three best teams in baseball, so winning it is more important than home field in the World Series. But I just don’t see Girardi managing as if the game counted. Manuel used two starting pitchers two innings, which gave him more flexibility for the rest of the game. Bottom line, the AL scored one unearned run because a pitcher who has yet to allow a hit to a LHB this year airmailed a ball over the first baseman’s head on a not very close play (i.e. a very good pitcher to be in the game against a LHB at that point). The NL scored three runs when one of the weakest pitchers on the AL roster put two men on, and another of the weakest pitchers on the roster gave up the double. The fact that the losing pitcher who might not have belonged at the game was picked as a reward from Girardi to one of his players is the kind of poetic justice that pleases all Yankee haters.
Not use middle relievers in the All-Star Game? Say it ain’t Kuo, Joe.
Without looking it up, I’d have to guess the 2001 WAR-leading reliever with less than ten saves was Felix Rodriguez, not Hernandez.
I think Girardi kept ARod out of the 9th bc there was never a chance to win the game with a HR. Putting him up to tie the game could have resulted in extra innings aka nightmare scenario see 2002
I hate to sound old, but I truly will never understand the appeal of Twitter. And what makes Joe great is his unnatural ability to crank out 3,000 words seemingly in minutes, on anything from Stan Musial to Snuggies, and make people care about every letter.
Even if Twitter wasn’t lame, it doesn’t play to your strengths, Joe…
Oh and on your list of the past decade’s top set-up guys, I think it should be Felix Rodriguez for ’01.
I know I’m committing the twin cardinal sins of post hoc ergo proptor hoc and putting stock in small sample size data, but
I can’t help but notice that the two highly lauded left-handed middle relievers in the game both had pretty bad outings.
Middle relievers go hot and go cold. Hmm, or become closers…
There are a lot of things “wrong” with the All-Star game every year: You got pick and who didn’t, special treatment from a manager for his own players, having to use every player on the bloated roster in a 9 inning game, but still having players available for extra innings. But the biggest ‘wrong’ thing is that we now cap that off by making the result of the game matter. The game is an exhibition, it should be managed like an exhibition, and we shouldn’t be worried about the tactical decisions made by the manager. Then we can all go back to just arguing about who deserves to be on the roster, instead of being worried about constructing a roster and managing for a game that needs to be won.
@ 67 – Richard – you really think Evan Longoria needs a few hits in an All-Star game to have confidence as a hitter?
This wasn’t gamesmanship on Girardi’s part. He just didn’t care much, which is probably how a manager should treat this game.
On “Awesome”:
Bill Engvall: People always misuse the word awesome. If I came home from work and was greeted by Shania Twain wearing nothing but a fur coat and a note form my wife that said “have a great time…” now THAT would be awesome!
You listed the top middle relievers since
2000 and concluded that because there were no repeats that middle-relief is unpredictable. But there’s another
explanation. It is not unusual for a very good middle reliever to get moved into the closer spot.
Have you checked to see how many of the relievers in your list became closers at some point after appearing in your list?