Mays Hayes

I don't like the idea of a 6 man rotation, and taking away starts from Gallardo, Wolf, and Davis. But I wouldn't hate seeing something like this... where Bush, Parra, and Suppan's starts are distributed evenly by rotating them through the 2nd and 4th spots in the rotation. So Gallardo, Wolf, and Davis still pitch every 5th game... but Bush, Parra, and Suppan throw every 8th game until performance dictates who should get the starts. Kind of like JohnBriggs12's idea except by rotating them in the 2nd and 4th spots they all pitch regularly. So it would look like this. Gallardo (Bush) Wolf (Parra) Davis Gallardo (Suppan) Wolf (Bush) Davis Gallardo (Parra) Wolf (Suppan) Davis *repeat* Personally, I'd prefer just going with Gallardo, Wolf, Davis, Bush, Parra and put Suppan in the bullpen until he's needed in the rotation because of injury or poor performance. But if we used a 6 man rotation... I'd rather see this than a straight rotation.

yes, the percentages on Rivera, Eck, Hoffman are career numbers. I understand what you're saying, but it still doesn't change much in regards to the point I was trying to make on the consecutive saves record. Carrying a save percentage of over 90% over a span of 85 games does not happen very often. A closer keeping his job for 85 save attempts is an accomplishment in itself. Looking over the past few years of saves stats..... In 2008, only 3 closers in the top 20 in saves converted 90% of their opportunites: Soria, Lidge, and Rivera Thus far in 2009 an impressive 11 of the top 21 closers are converting 90% of their opportunites. But still, only Soria,Rivera, Hoffman are converting 90% since 2008, and that still doesn't get them to 85 opportunities. To get over 85, Go back through 2007, Hoffman and Soria fall below 90%, leaving only Rivera closing at a 90% clip since the 07 season. Other closers are very close to 90%, Papelbon, Nathan... but the point is, it's rare for a closer to be even 90% over 85 games... And as I showed in my example even a 91% closer has only a .033% chance of closing 85 straight and if their is only a few guys every three years that can close 90% over a 85 game span... what kind of odds does that leave?? as the closing percentage drops, the chances of closing 85 straight drops drastically 90% = .013% 89% = .005% 88% = .002% 87% = .0007% 86% = .00027% 85% = .00010% 70% = .000000000006% (league average) !!

I haven't been able to find any Monte Carlo studies done on Eric Gagne's consecutive saves record... I was only able to find simulations on oft discussed and publicized Joe DiMaggio's hit streak. These analysis indicate it is not extremely unusual that in the history of baseball that a player was able to hit in 56 games consecutively. However, given the high batting averages of the early 1900s late 1800s these studies don't necessarily give a great indicator of how difficult this record will be to break going forward. Dimaggio's record is commonly refered to as one of the "safest" records in the books. Comparing the two accomplishments and their unlikelyhoods is difficult, the modern 1 inning save, the closer role, and the save statistic in general are relatively new to baseball. The closer role as we know it has really only been a fixture in baseball since everyone's favorite manager, Tony LaRussa, popularized the role with the help of Dennis Eckersley in the late 80s. But consider this, I admit, rather parochial comparision. A player that bats .400 during a 57 game stretch (4 AB/game) has a ~.87 or 87% chance of getting a hit in one game (1-(.6^4) .87^57 = .000357 or .0357% chance of hitting in 57 consecutive games These odds compare to a closer who saves .91 or 91% of his saves managing to close 85 consecutive games .91^85 = .000330 or .0330% chance of saves 85 consecutive games Now I don't have any stats for such events, but it doesn't take statistician to tell you the number of times a player bats .400 over 57 games happens A LOT more often than a closer averaging 91% saves closed over an 85 game span. There are only 192 players that have 85 saves in their entire career. Baseball's best closers do not have a save conversion rate of 91% (Rivera .847, Eck .8125, Hoffman .868) Obviously, there just are not many chances for a closer to accomplish such an event, it takes two seasons for 1 closer/team to even log enough games to have a qualifying event. Compare that to the thousands of opportunties major league hitters have to bat .400 over a 57 games span. Now, I realize that I haven't written any mathematical proofs here, but I think that you can see where I'm going with this. The more I think about, research this record, the more I think it is one of the most unbreakable, underrated, and unlikely feats in baseball history. Next to Cy Young's wins record I'm not sure there is another record more unlikely to be broken. Especially considering that the modern day "closer role" has no guarantee of being a mainstay in major league baseball for all of eternity. You never know when the next Tony LaRussa is going to come along and popularize a new and improved way of managing their pitchers to close out games. If I were a betting man, I'd bet everything I have, could beg or borrow for that none of us see this record fall or even approached in our lifetimes.

opp/yr is relevant in determining how many years pass before the record is broken... and your example like my original equation doesn't take in consideration the fact the the streak resets after any failed attempt not every 85 attempts. I know how to calculate the odds of it occuring in one attempt. What I can't figure out is how to calculate the odds of it occuring over a time frame of 50 yrs/100 yrs/ etc. (which is why opp/yr is relevent). league ave is typically a shade under 70% I believe.

Whats the sense in trading for a reliever, or anyone, if we can't bring in a SP? I don't buy it. If Melvin didn't think he could land a SP, I don't think he trades for Lopez.

Can someone help me calculate approximate odds of Eric Gagne's record being broken based on league average save % and league average save opportunites/yr. What I'm looking for is the number of years for it to be likely that the record is broken. I'm no stats guru, and the numbers I've come up with basically say that it is nearly impossible for the record to be broken based on a league average save %. pretending that each team only uses one closer, is this equation even close to correct? EDIT: No, it's not!! my calculations didn't consider the fact that the streak starts over after every failed attempt instead of every 85 opportunities. Still if someone who knows what they're doing can give an idea of how likely it is that this record is broken over the next 50 or 100 years. etc. I'd be very interested... based on league ave save %'s and average save opportunites/yr.

Not to mention pitches per inning and which innings they were in. If a pitcher throws a bunch of 10 pitch innings and then has a tough 35 pitch inning mostly out of the stretch in say the 6th and ends with 102 pitches I probably want him out of the game. I probably would have pulled him after the 6th as well, considering it was a tough inning, he was due up, and the assumption he would have to be pulled during the 7th if someone reached base early. That fact that Yovanni can hit a little probably factored into the decision as much as anything. As it turned out he did pitch a clean 7th, and I don't feel that inning will take any kind of toll on Yovanni's arm in the long run. Things certainly could have played out differently though.

I've always wondered about this, and it seems, based on your post, that you'd know the answer. Obviously the reason you pitch from the stretch is to get the ball to the plate quicker to make it harder to steal with runners on. But what is the effect on the pitch itself, and on the pitcher. Do pitchers lose velocity or control by pitching from the stretch? It sounds like you're alluding that it tires out your arm quicker? Because I've always wondered why pitchers don't pitch from the stretch the whole game to keep the mechanics the same, or why for example they don't just throw in a pitch here and there from the stretch just to mess with the batter's timing. Throwing from the stretch affects some pitchers more than others, but, in general, pitchers do lose velocity and tire faster than throwing from the windup. Two main reasons, momentum and tempo. Pitchers throw from the stretch to be quicker to the plate, and most pitchers have to speed up their delivery (time the ball breaks the glove to the release) from the stretch. This causes injury for the same reason fatigue causes injuries, poor mechanics. Also the momentum generated by the windup takes more effort to generate over a shorter time and distance from the stretch. Generally the longer the pitchers natural delivery, the more they are adversely affected by pitching from the stretch. When you compound the fatigue the pitcher already has late in games with the effects of pitching from the stretch, it can easily lead to injuries. Not to mention the added stresses of holding base runners which can also cause poor mechanics and lead to injury. Bottomline is that pitch count is just one of many reasons to consider when assessing a pitchers ability to continue in a game, to me the amount of pitches thrown from the stretch especially late in games is just as important as pitch count.

Keeping Gallardo in the game to pitch the 7th was certainly a questionable decision, for all the reasons presented. However, he had an 11 pitch 7th inning, all from the windup. No harm done. Had a runner reached base early in that inning, and Macha allowed Gallardo to pitch the 7th from the stretch, I'd have been upset.