Pitchers "Earning" Run Support

[mikevan1818]

So I'm sitting here watching the Mets-Braves game on ESPN and the announcer (who I believe is Steve Phillips) is making some comments that I wanted to throw out there and have someone explain to me if it makes any sense.

Santana pitched 6 1/3 innings and only gave up one unearned run on an error in the 2nd or third inning. He left after 107 pitches. The announcers were talking about run support and Steve Phillips says something along the lines of:

I believe that pitchers often times earn their run support. I was in the front office for 13 years and while sitting and watching every game you could start to feel the pattern of the game for starting pitchers. Over the course of the season/time it always seemed that the same guys seemed to get runs and the same guys didnt get runs because of the pattern of their game.

The other announcer asks You're saying Santana has a bad rhythm/pattern to his game?

He goes on: I think it's the feel of his game. I think it's not a conscious thing, but the players know it he is the ace of the staff and it's going to be a low scoring game and he isn't going to give up much - it's just the rhythm of the game he has. Steve Trachsel had one of the slowest games and he never got any run support - and I don't think he earned it.

So he is basically saying it is Santana's fault that he doesn't get runs because he has a slow style - so he doesn't earn/deserve runs?

To me it sounds like a fairly ridiculous thought - but I don't claim to be as wise in baseball as many here. I wanted to see what some of you think about those comments and if there is any validity to a pitcher not getting runs because he has a slow style of play? The other announcers didn't seem to understand either - but the conversation kind of trailed off and I was left hanging.

Anyone else hear this - or anyone able to enlighten me?

Note: as I typed the Braves scored 5 in the 7th - so Santana may have a loss and 1 ER.

Edit: Removed quotes because they aren't exactly what Philips said, but very close.

[JJHardy7]

I heard it, but I don't know if your quotes are 100% true or not or if the way you are taking it is. Phillips pretty much said when an ace starts the team may feel they only need a few runs -- that's the drift I got. And if your #4 or #5 guy goes, the team feels they need more runs.

 

I heard as Santana is really good and his team may not get as many runs because they don't 'need' them because he's good. I very well could be wrong with that, but that was the drift I got.

[mikevan1818]

I guess I probably shouldn't have quotes around what I wrote because it's not word-for-word, but I went back rewound my DVR and tried to get as close to what he said as possible. It's faily close.

 

The way I took it was that Santana doesn't "earn" the runs. I can understand a pitcher who is slow coughing up a few runs because a defense is on it's heals - but I don't really understand how that translates into run support. I don't see how it is Santana's fault - and there was no explanation as to how he could earn the runs?

[Diskono]

I can't imagine it being anything more than a coincidence, but maybe smarter people than I can come up with some stats showing that there is something to what he's saying. But IMO the only way a pitcher can be credited or blamed for run support is through their own hitting.

[rluzinski]

I watch ESPN games almost never but I just happened to be watching this game. Was Phillips the one going on for about 10 minutes about players needing to have an edge and how it makes players perform better?

 

There is no stat to back up his claim about run support. Steve Phillips is just absolutely clueless. He is exhibit "A" with regard to MLB being a good ol' boys club that's willing to employ incompetence for years. I think Bowden is exhibit "B".

[DuWayne Steurer]

Way back when I remember someone here claiming that Wayne Franklin got great run support because the guys "knew he was gonna give them 6 solid innings every time out"

 

Personally, I think it's a crock.

 

I'll certainly concede that there's an obvious human/emotion side to the game that can't be measured, but at the same time, some of the "intangible" crap some of the talking heads (and some of the old school managers and GM's) spout is just such complete and utter nonsense, I sometimes lose hope that baseball as a whole will accept that the game is changing and "Math" isn't a terrible thing.

[kramnoj]

He is exhibit "A" with regard to MLB being a good ol' boys club that's willing to employ incompetence for years. I think Bowden is exhibit "B".

 

I don't see that being true. I have a hard time believing the Mets owners would throw away games because they happened to personally like Phillips. The problem is that there's no school to learn how to be a GM, there's no test to tell how a GM will do. The Mets looked at people who had been through the baseball trenches and hired the guy that impressed them the most in the interview. Since the Mets owners themselves aren't informed enough to judge all of Phillips actions, they gave him enough time to prove he didn't deserve it.

[mothershipconnection]

Of course. It makes complete sense that guys fighting for jobs and/or with millions of dollars on the line just "step it up" on nights when they have a bum on the hill but sit back, watch strikes go by, and take a breather when a good pitcher is out there.

This just doesn't make sense to me. A hitter's status, roster spot, and pay all depend on his stats, and I can't see a guy letting chances to improve them get away because they have a good shot at winning even if he K's four times.

[thebruce44]

I agree that Phillips is a boob and this is just another example.

 

I do think that a case could be made for the opposing pitcher getting a little more hyped up to pitch against Santana. I know a true professional would play the same every start, but it is possible they get a little more zeroed in and pitch with less margin of error when their going against a premier pitcher.

[Pack87Man]

One thing I have heard, and this is sort of similar, though in a backwards way, is that position players really prefer a pitcher who is going to keep the game moving, rather than slowing it down. From what I understand, the human rain delays always get more errors committed behind them, because players just aren't quite as sharp and ready to make plays. Maybe that translates to the plate as well. If you're going to be lethargic in getting the ball up to the plate, the rest of the team follows suit.

[rluzinski]

I don't see that being true. The problem is that there's no school to learn how to be a GM, there's no test to tell how a GM will do. The Mets looked at people who had been through the baseball trenches and hired the guy that impressed them the most in the interview. Since the Mets owners themselves aren't informed enough to judge all of Phillips actions, they gave him enough time to prove he didn't deserve it.

 

I obviously didn't explain it nearly as clearly as you, but that's what I was trying to get at. They are "willing to employ incompetence for years" because for some, the only requirements for being a GM is to be a former ballplayer who wants to be a GM and has a good personality. And if you do become a GM, you are judged almost entirely by how well your team performs. If you inherit a good team and/or prospects and/or you are lucky enough to be the GM for a team with a large payroll, you'll probably stay the GM for many years.

 

Things are changing in many cities but there's still a very strong good ol' boys network for many franchises.

[sheetswannabe]

Just my 2 cents, but I remember 04 Ben Sheets. 2.70 ERA and 12-14 record. I know ERA isn't everything, but jeez.

[Pointer1VB]

...and Randy Johnson also had horrible run support in 2004. Is it Ben's and Randy's fault? I'm thinking it's probably the fact that they both had pretty poor offenses supporting them that year.

 

Steve Phillips made this same argument on Baseball Tonight last week and was visibly mocked by the rest of the talking heads. John Kruk kept bringing it back up throughout the show and each time he did Phillips had a sheepish look and would say something like, "Well, I don't have anything to back it up but I just believe the pitcher sets the pace for his offense with the amount of time he takes." If that were true, Doug Davis would never win over 5 games.

[brewcrewfan08]

I think what hes trying to say is pitchers that tend to work faster "earn" more run support. They get their team back in the dugout and up to the plate again quicker causing the momentum gained from the previous inning or at bat by the player to not be lost. Playing defense for a long period of time in my opinion relates to offensive performance. I dont have any stats to back it up, but thats how I always felt when I played.

 

Then again Sheets was a pretty quick worker and he didnt get run support. I also think, like others, that it has to do with a concious belief that they dont need to score as many runs.

[Brily0204]

I think the Mets' struggles in support of Santana have as much to do with the opposing pitchers as anything. In his seven starts Santana has been opposed twice by Florida's Jason Johnson (6th in the NL in ERA) and once each by Aaron Harang (10th), Gallardo (13th), and Derek Lowe (20th). The Mets have also faced (and hit) Scott Olsen once and Chan Ho Park (who held them to one hit in 6 innings) once.

 

A quick look back at Santana's career stats shows that his teams have generally scored about 4.5-5.5 runs/game. Doesn't look to me that he us somehow suppressing his offenses.

 

Edit: When you get older, kids, you too will stop learning the names of new players and will simply substitute older ones. I meant "Josh"--not "Jason"--Johnson.

[Thurston Fluff]

Then again Sheets was a pretty quick worker and he didnt get run support.

 

Given some of the teams he was on it is hardly surprising he had little run support. Part of it has to do with how the pitchers lineup. If a pitcher opposes some of the top pitchers on the other teams regularly he will have less support. Sometimes it might have to do with how the team plays for runs. If the team has a pitcher who needs little support they may play for one run instead of the big inning. Not so much playing to score only once but giving up a chance at a big inning to be sure of getting at least one. Maybe if someone knows where to find how many sacrifices against a particular pitcher compared to others we could add some stats to this. Not sure it exists but if it does I'm sure someone will know were to find it.

[rluzinski]

I don't buy any of it and I think a guy like Phillips should at least try to find some evidence for his theories before sharing them with the world. The guy works for ESPN! He has access to people who could look at this stuff. I don't think is theories even pass the sniff test, though, so I doubt they would hold up to any kind of analytical scrutiny.

[TooLiveBrew]

While I think there is something to be said for the psychological side of the game, I tend to agree with rluz & the opinion that knuckleheads that spout this kinda stuff off should have to be able to back it up, not just claim, 'Hey, I was a pretty crummy GM for a few seasons.. just take my word on it...'

[owbc]

So it doesn't have anything to do with Citi Field? That place is probably going to end up being a top-5 pitchers' ballpark.

 

Also, the rotations are still set up so that Santana is facing the opposing team's ace. He's faced Aaron Harang, Josh Johnson (twice), Yovani Gallardo, Scott Olsen, Chan Ho Park, and Derek Lowe.

 

Finally, he only pitched 6.1 innings yesterday. If he finished his games like Greinke, he wouldn't have to deal with the bullpen blowing it. With 0 complete games so far, you are always leaving it up to someone else to finish it up.

 

The only pro-Phillips argument that I can think of is that his slow style bores his defense, which results in errors and unearned runs.

[JJHardy7]

I guess I probably shouldn't have quotes around what I wrote because it's not word-for-word, but I went back rewound my DVR and tried to get as close to what he said as possible. It's faily close.

 

Oh it is. I just think he went 'down the path' of working slow and about tempo, but then went back to since he's good he may not get as many runs. I guess I could maybe understand that...maybe. I don't understand the tempo part as much if that's what he really meant.

 

There is some human element I'm sure, but without looking at stats or using stats I don't buy it.

 

I don't think Phillips is all that bad. He does provide some unique aspects since he was a GM. I think he just tries to hard to make sense of things from a very high level to the general fan...which can lead to comments like the one last night.

[Thurston Fluff]

The only pro-Phillips argument that I can think of is that his slow style bores his defense, which results in errors and unearned runs.

 

If the argument was wins and losses this would be debatable. but the argument is pitching slow makes your team score less. not sure how pitching slow makes the team less able to hit than the team actually facing the slow pitcher.

 

I tend to agree with rluz & the opinion that knuckleheads that spout this kinda stuff off should have to be able to back it up, not just claim, 'Hey, I was a pretty crummy GM for a few seasons.. just take my word on it...'

 

Not saying this is not true but how does one backup an intangible argument? Doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Defense is hard to judge empirically but that doesn't mean defense has no value from one player to another. One thing Philips has against him is his theories never seemed to work as a GM so I'm not sure why he thinks it has any merit in making his point. If he could point to a particular situation and how that related maybe but to say - I've been an evaluator of talent and this is how it is - is a stretch when so many did the same job better. Somebody should inform Philips that being crummy at a job does not give him any credibility to speak as an authority on said job. It might be wise for someone to also inform ESPN that credibility does not come from merely holding onto a position while doing nothing of consequence at said position.

[joepepsi]

Then again Sheets was a pretty quick worker and he didnt get run support.

 

Given some of the teams he was on it is hardly surprising he had little run support. Part of it has to do with how the pitchers lineup. If a pitcher opposes some of the top pitchers on the other teams regularly he will have less support. Sometimes it might have to do with how the team plays for runs. If the team has a pitcher who needs little support they may play for one run instead of the big inning.

If the pace of the pitcher determines run support then Sheets would be the winningest pitcher of the decade.

 

I tend to agree with backup. If there is anything to this at all, it has to do with the 1 or 2 pitchers in a rotation facing the best opposing pitchers more often than the the other pitchers in the rotation. You could probably build some kind of study that looks at how many starts a guy like Santana pitches against opponents with an ERA under 3.50 vs. the same with Pelfry.

 

So far this year Santana has gone head to head with Josh Johnson twice(2.34), Aaron Harang (2.93), Yovani Gallardo(3.09), Derek Lowe(3.80), and two scrubs, Chan Ho Park and Scott Olsen.

Pelfry is 4-0 in 5 starts but has faced Volquez (4.40), Walter Silva (6.52), Daniel Cabrera (4.98), Park(6.67) and Jamie Moyer(7.26).

 

It's reasonable to expect the Mets to score more runs so far this year when Pelfrey pitches. Meanwhile Santana has faced some of the better pitchers in the league, guys who go deep in innings keeping the Mets from the opportunity to feast on the opposition's bullpen.

[Brawndo the Thirst Mutilat]

...and Randy Johnson also had horrible run support in 2004. Is it Ben's and Randy's fault? I'm thinking it's probably the fact that they both had pretty poor offenses supporting them that year.

And how. Among Brewer hitters that got significant playing time in 2004, the second best performance was basically a two-way tie between Brady Clark and Keith Ginter (Overbay was best, Jenkins had a down year).

 

That said, as big a Sheets mark as I always have been and continue to be to this day, it is important to remember that he was 1/9 to blame for his lousy run support by being such a spectacularly inept hitter. In the seasons he insisted on having Chad Moeller as his personal catcher, he was 2/9 to blame.

[cwolf2012]

I think it's almost all confirmation bias that leads to this conclusion. If an ace pitches a good game and gets 10 runs, nobody even thinks about it. If he pitches a great game, but loses 2-1, 2-0, etc, it gets noticed. Now, there may be a small psychological thing to have your best pitcher in and think you can take the game off, but I doubt it coorelates to more than a .1 run per game difference.