Mariners 9, Red Sox 8
Look, I understand that Mike Timlin has had some success against Richie Sexson and I also realize that he had only thrown 13 pitches. But Jonathan Papelbon has to come into that game in the bottom of the 9th, and I’ll tell you why.
J.J. Putz is one of baseball’s very best relief pitchers. The home run that Jason Varitek hit off of him in the top of the 9th was only the second four-bagger he has allowed in 46 appearences. After Varitek’s heroics and the game was tied, the Red Sox were in the driver’s seat. With Putz already taxed an inning and Rafael Soriano unavailable, the Sox could essentially go Papelbon vs. Putz and then leave Papelbon in for at least an extra inning beyond Putz should the game go that long. The Red Sox, averaging over 5.5 runs per game, score at least once every two innings and so if you assume that Papelbon can go two, maybe three scoreless innings against the free-swinging Mariners, then the question becomes can we score one run in the next two or three innings?
Instead, Francona probably thought along these lines. “Timlin has only thrown 13 pitches, he owns Richie Sexson and who do we have left if we don’t score while Paps is on the hill if I go to him this early? I need more out of Timlin.” It’s the type of thinking that doesn’t even allow you to get to the 10th inning.
Here is what he should have been thinking the very second the top of the 9th ended. “Putz has already thrown one inning and 18 pitches, my offense is very good, theirs sucks and I have a rested reliever available that hasn’t allowed a run in 41 of his 44 outings this season. There’s no chance we’re not winning this game.”
But hey, Papelbon is really, really rested now. Onto Oakland…
July 24th, 2006 at 10:53 am
Generally agree that Papelbon should have been in the game, but your assumption that the Sox score at least one run every two innings is not supported by their per game average of 5.5 runs. Their expected runs per two innings is 1.2 runs, but the probablity of scoring at least one run is probably less because some number of their runs are scored in multi-run innings. The actually probability of scoring at least one run in any given inning (or two innings) may be out there, but I don’t know where.
The comparable scenario is how a sacrifice bunt lowers the expected value of total runs in an inning, but raises the probability of scoring at least one.
July 24th, 2006 at 1:03 pm
You’re definitely right. Doesn’t do a ton to alter the major point, though.
Thanks for commenting.
July 24th, 2006 at 1:39 pm
No way should Pap have been in the game. Think about it. What if nobody scored for anothing two innings and Pap was still in there and then we score a run in the top of the 11th. Who are you going to have come in and close the game? Seanez? Tavarez? Yea, okay. And 3 innings doesnt make any sense cuz we lose him for the next two days.
July 24th, 2006 at 1:44 pm
Plus, think about it. If had gone the other way around. With Papelbon coming in and going two innings and then tavarez blowing the game in the 11th. you’d have been screaming at francona for not leaving in Timlin who had only ptiched 13 pitches and was 1 out or 16 against sexson. so don’t even say anything.
July 24th, 2006 at 3:17 pm
Nope. It’s a philosophical belief of mine and I am on record here stating as much when similar situations arose in the past. If you are heading to extras and you have the offense the Sox do, you don’t worry about the 12th inning in the 9th. You throw your best reliever out there and ask your offense, one of the very best in baseball, to go out and get you one stinkin’ run.
When you worry about the 11th, you lose in the 9th. When you worry about saving your best for tomorrow or the nex day’s games, you end up losing today.
July 25th, 2006 at 8:49 am
He’s been pretty consistent in his belief with regards to “closers.” (ie. A pitcher like Papelbon should pitch in the most important late-game situations, not just with leads of three runs or less)