Giants Preview: Bullpens

Now that the trade deadline is over, I feel like I can post about a few different things that I've wanted to talk about, but I just felt like post-trade deadline would be the best timing for them. One of those things will be coming next week, when I will preview the Nationals series (our first full home series since the deadline) with my choices for walk-up songs for each of our players. Get pumped.

Another thing that I have wanted to talk about, though, is bullpens. I wanted to wait until after the deadline to see if we would add anything to our bullpen and what exactly that would be. I think it's totally fine that we did not, but I just figured that maybe it would add something to the discussion if we did.

Brian Wilson's beard has been a big talking point any time the Phillies play the Giants. Or any time the Giants play anyone. Or whenever someone talks about closers. Or if people talk about beards. Or, generally, if people talk about anything it seems (including how to dress their baby). He has a sweet beard, there's no denying that. Dying it with shoe polish takes it down a peg or two in my book, but that's a story for a different time. The real reason that his beard is even worthy of talking about, though, is because he is a great closer. If he had 18 saves, 5 blown saves, and a 4.50 ERA, people wouldn't really care about his facial hair decisions. Going 33 for 37 in save opportunities with a 2.88 ERA will give people something to talk about, though.

A good closer in general is worth talking about regardless of what's growing all over his face. We know from 2008 how valuable one can be. We also know from 2009 how valuable one can be (yikes). I question, though, is a closer really as valuable as we all think? And, if he is, why do we insist on using them in the wrong ways?

In theory, the 5 best pitchers on a baseball team are the 5 starters. The 6th best pitcher, however, will generally be the closer. Those should be the most reliable guys. You can argue Mariano Rivera is a better pitcher than Ivan Nova or some other majoke of a starter that the Yankees have this season, but, the bottom line is, you generally want your best pitchers starting. That's why the Red Sox wanted Jonathan Papelbon to be a starter for them initially...because he was really good. That's why we tried to make Ryan Madson into a starter. He was too good to be in the bullpen. It is only when starting doesn't work out or there is some other special circumstance that an excellent pitcher be kept in the bullpen.

If nothing else, we can definitely agree that a closer is the best relief pitcher on a team. If that is the case, why are closers only used when a team is winning? I know that question seems kind of stupid at first, and, for the most part, it is a stupid question. Except when it comes to extra innings. The reason you put a closer in when you're up by 1 run in the 9th inning is because you know he can get you 3 outs without giving up a run and losing that lead. That makes sense. When it comes to extra innings, though, teams will swear by the statistics. They only want to put their closer in if he can get a save. Otherwise, what's the point, right?

Let's look at the Pirates 19-inning fiasco against the Braves last week. Daniel McCutchen, who had not thrown more than 52 pitches or 3 innings in a game this season, stayed in the game for 5.1 innings, throwing an incredible 92 pitches. He faced 24 batters, nearly double his previous season high. The obvious reason for this would be that the Pirates had no other pitchers, but that's not true. They had Joel Hanrahan, their closer, sitting in the bullpen. As of today, he is 30 for 31 in save opportunities with a 1.13 ERA. So, while Daniel McCutchen threw 92 pitches and ended up giving up the winning run, Hanrahan just waited. He waited until it was a save situation. A save situation that never came.

You do this as the away team because once you score in extra innings, you really don't want to blow it. So you go to the guy who will surely win you the game. So only once you have a lead do you turn to the guy are most confident can pitch a shutout inning. The Pirates, along with just about every other away team in extra innings, did not think that the 9th, 10th, 11th, 12th, 13th, 14th, 15th, 16th, 17th, 18th, or 19th innings were important enough to put in their best pitcher. It's almost as if giving up a run in one of those innings, with the game still tied, doesn't really matter to them. Here's my thinking on this:

If you give up a run with the game tied, you lose
If you give up a run while you're winning, the game continues

To me, of these two options, the latter seems much more appealing. So why not throw your closer for an inning or 2 when it really matters. Sure, you're giving yourself a bigger chance of losing a lead you may get later, but I think that's better than giving yourself a bigger chance of losing that game now. Does this not make sense to anyone else? Am I talking to myself?

It's as if the title of "closer" is the most valuable in all of sport. Once you've been dubbed a "closer," that's what you are, and it's what you shall forever be. No matter what the individual circumstance is, you should only pitch in a save situation, and every save situation should be yours.

Well, what if there are 3 lefties due up for the other team in the 9th? If it were the 7th, every good bullpen has a "left-handed specialist" that will absolutely handle that inning, no question. But in the 9th, we give it to the closer, no matter what hand he throws with. And the same goes for a "setup man." In 2008, Ryan Madson was our setup man and Brad Lidge was our closer. That's the 8th and 9th inning, always. Forget the fact that J.C. Romero could still throw strikes at that time and get out any left-handed hitter in the league. The 8th was for Madson, the 9th was for Lidge. It worked for us, but it goes against all of the logic used in the rest of the game it seems. In our series against the Padres at the beginning of last week, we had 7 straight lefties or switch hitters. In the 8th inning, with Utley, Howard, Victorino, Ibanez up, righty Mike Adams came in and pitched to them because he's the setup man. It worked, but why? One inning earlier and they would've used lefty Josh Spence they had waiting in the bullpen.

Much of this argument is actually totally pointless because, like I just said, it works. It worked for us in 2008. It worked for the Padres with Adams and Heath Bell. Mariano Rivera has always worked for the Yankees. Maybe there is a completely different mindset that goes with being a "closer" that some guys just don't have. But maybe that mindset has only been created because you take someone who is used to a certain situation and tell him, "Hey, no matter who is up or what the situation is, we're putting you in because we're winning. So win." If that means getting out 3 lefties, that's what it means. Even though someone else in the 'pen does only that, it's now been pushed onto someone new. I can see that being a tough thing to handle. Maybe tough enough that you grow out an awesome beard so people can start talking about something else.

Game 1: Cliff Lee (10-7, 3.14 ERA) vs. Madison Bumgarner (6-10, 3.80 ERA)
Neither of these guys pitched when we faced the Giants a week ago, so this is a tough matchup to predict. Lee is 3-0 with a 1.13 against the Giants in his career, including 2-0 with a 1.13 ERA in San Francisco. No one on their roster stands out as too much of a threat to Lee, aside from Aaron Rowand (.280, 4 2B, 1 HR) who does not always get much playing time for them. I expect success from Lee, but I would expect the same from Bumgarner. We've never faced the 22-year-old lefty, and I don't know if Hunter Pence alone has done enough to make us that much better against lefties. I give us the edge though because of Bumgarner's name. Bumgarner sounds hilarious to me. To "garner" something is basically to collect it, so to me it sounds like this guy is just going around collecting butts. I'm 9.
Prediction: Phillies 2 Giants 1
Keep an eye out for: Hunter Pence extending his Phillies hitting and winning streaks both to 6 games.

Game 2: Vance Worley (7-1, 2.33 ERA) vs. Jonathan Sanchez (4-5, 3.81 ERA)
I think this could possibly be the best matchup of the series. To put it simply, we suck against Sanchez. We have a whopping .180 average against him, including a 1 for 16 from Jimmy. That's pretty rare to see with Rollins being a leadoff hitter. Usually, even with a bad average against someone, he'll have a number of hits just because of how many at bats he can get. Not so for Sanchez. While we may not be able to hit too well, I don't know if the Giants will even step up to the plate after the whooping that the Vanimal put on them last week. His complete game 4-hitter was a thing of beauty, only ruined by Aaron Rowand and his stupid home run with his stupid broken face. I love him.
Prediction: Phillies 3 Giants 0
Keep an eye out for: the Phillies taking advantage of Sanchez's lack of control to get some base runners and manufacture a few runs. And Worley continuing his dominance against San Francisco as he auditions for a starting spot in a possible playoff series with the Giants

Game 3: Cole Hamels (12-6, 2.62 ERA) vs. Matt Cain (9-7, 3.10 ERA)
This is the same matchup as last week that we lost 2-1. Although my preview of last week's series did not preview this specific matchup (because Tim Lincecum had a tummy ache), I expect much of the same of what we saw in that game. I know the Phillies won't sweep this series, and I would be fine coming away from it with a 2-2 split. This game, however, feels like one we should win. Hamels and Cain both pitched very well, but one of them had to lose. Since that series, though, the Phillies have gone 6-0 and now have Hunter Pence. The Giants still have dumb crappy Carlos Beltran (who cares), and they've barely been able to win a game as they watch their division slowly slip away from them. Hilarious. What a difference a week makes.
Prediction: Phillies 2 Giants 1
Keep an eye out for: everything from that last game, reversed. It's gonna be crayay.

Game 4: Roy Oswalt (4-6, 3.79 ERA) vs. Tim Lincecum (9-9, 2.77 ERA)
Let me first say that 5 years ago, you would've been hard-pressed to find a 4-game series with all 8 starting pitchers having ERAs under 4.00. To some, this means the game is becoming boring. To me, this is awesome to watch. I love seeing hitters look absolutely stupid and pitchers dominate games. I have been lucky enough to see 3 different complete game shutouts live in my day, one by Brett Myers, one by J.A. Happ, and one by Jamie Moyer. Those games are just as exciting to me as a 20-5 game, which I have also seen live. Throughout this series, we can expect to see some great pitching, and it is something that should be appreciated. Unfortunately, I think Lincecum gets the better end of this one.
Prediction: Giants 4 Phillies 1
Keep an eye out for: Oswalt pitching well but coming out early as we try to ease him back into the rotation.