Rhodes’ Usage

Dave · July 21, 2008 at 8:00 am · Filed Under Mariners 

Here’s a fun fact about how the M’s have used Arthur Rhodes this year:

Among pitchers who have been used in at least 30 games in a season since 1950, only two pitchers have faced fewer hitters than Rhodes, who has faced 74 men this year – 2001 Jesse Orosco faced 69 and 2002 Rich Rodriguez faced 72.

Rhodes is facing 2.39 batters per game. It doesn’t get much more LOOGY than this – even when he’s getting people out, the M’s aren’t even trying to get full innings out of him.

Comments

31 Responses to “Rhodes’ Usage”

  1. wrob4343 on July 21st, 2008 8:18 am

    Its called wasting good value. More empirical proof why this organization has landed where it is. But at least this way when they ship him out he’ll be fresh!

  2. msb on July 21st, 2008 8:19 am

    and Orosco had the excuse of being 112 years old.

  3. ChrisK on July 21st, 2008 8:34 am

    I’m sure the M’s view this as a spectacular success, since they are so obsessed with their players slotting into specific “roles” and staying there.

  4. Eugene on July 21st, 2008 8:34 am

    It seems like his current skill set would be valuable to some team without a decent second lefty trying for a stretch run. Do you think the M’s could get a B or two C level prospects for him?

  5. pygmalion on July 21st, 2008 8:39 am

    Its called wasting good value.

    Are they really wasting him? It’s not like we are desperate for bullpen arms and they may simply be concerned with his health and desire to be careful with his arm. (Kind of the opposite of their approach to Batista, but then again, we ARE desperate for starting pitching).

  6. Carson on July 21st, 2008 8:48 am

    Yes. Let’s throw Sean Green out there every night until his arm blows up, and forget Rhodes is on the team.

  7. gag harbor on July 21st, 2008 9:02 am

    For some general hilarity, [deleted, ot]

  8. G-Man on July 21st, 2008 9:02 am

    It seems like his current skill set would be valuable to some team without a decent second lefty trying for a stretch run. Do you think the M’s could get a B or two C level prospects for him?

    Absolutely. Some writer had him as our #1 most likely to be traded.

  9. hansk on July 21st, 2008 9:16 am

    We should bring back Kevin Jarvis! Remember him??

  10. marc w on July 21st, 2008 10:06 am

    This says less about Rhodes than it does about the development of the LOOGY role. His batters-faced per appearance isn’t THAT historically wacky, at least amongst his LOOGY brethren – it’s only odd if you limit the sample to ’30 appearances’.

    Mike Myers faced 2.13 batters per appearance in 2006 (and did quite well). Our own George Sherrill was at 2.42 in the same year.

    I think you can make a case that Rhodes is ready to face righties, but I can’t really fault the M’s on this one – it’s not like his development is being stalled by this usage pattern (contra Sherrill).

  11. lokiforever on July 21st, 2008 10:14 am

    George Sherrill was a LOOGY until more competent management got a hold of him.

  12. gwangung on July 21st, 2008 10:29 am

    George Sherrill was a LOOGY until more competent management got a hold of him.

    That’s something that hasn’t percolated through the alleged brains of local sports journalists.

  13. PaulMolitorCocktail on July 21st, 2008 10:39 am

    We should bring back Kevin Jarvis! Remember him??

    Doug Creek is rested and ready.

  14. Sports on a Schtick on July 21st, 2008 10:49 am

    I was skeptical about Rhodes coming back but he’s been a pleasant surprise. A rarely used pleasant surprise but still one nonethelesss.

  15. joser on July 21st, 2008 10:54 am

    I’m sure M’s management view this as a success. Since ERA is the end-all of pitcher evaluation as far as they’re concerned, by limiting his batters faced they’ve kept his ERA low, thus maximizing his value. That’s why they like bringing those guys up from Tacoma — they have shiny 0.00 ERAs in the majors.

    George Sherrill was a LOOGY until more competent management got a hold of him.

    I don’t know if anybody else noticed, but as the ASG stretched into extra innings and McCarver and Buck were discussing the availability of various arms in the bullpen, one of them said “Sherrill is only good for one inning” and I started screaming at the TV (well, I didn’t start screaming, I just picked up the “You guys are morons!” litany again on a different subject. Different verse, same as the first). Francona clearly knew better. (Wow, a manager like that, who can actually evaluate talent and doesn’t have his brain permanently suck in one set of “role” grooves… given a decent team, you’d kind of expect him to win a World Series or two).

  16. Dave on July 21st, 2008 10:58 am

    The point of this wasn’t to criticize the M’s or complain about Rhodes’ usage – I just noticed that he’d pitched in 30 something games and had only completed 17 innings, though that sounded low, and did a little research. I found the results interesting.

    That’s it.

  17. Joe on July 21st, 2008 11:00 am

    Well, to be fair, Rhodes did come back awfully quickly from TJ surgery (he had it in May 2007 and was back pitching in spring training less than a year later). Given that and his age, it’s not unreasonable keep the amount of work down. They clearly realize a lefty reliever can be more than a LOOGY: see RRS. (Though it may be they never had RRS slotted into the “LOOGY” role in their heads, perhaps he was always a lefty proto-starter getting time in the bullpen?)

  18. Osfan on July 21st, 2008 11:07 am

    I never thought the Orioles management would ever be referred to as “more competent” than anyone. But, I can’t argue the point. MacPhail robbed the M’s blind.

  19. wrob4343 on July 21st, 2008 11:20 am

    The point of this wasn’t to criticize the M’s or complain about Rhodes’ usage – I just noticed that he’d pitched in 30 something games and had only completed 17 innings, though that sounded low, and did a little research. I found the results interesting.

    That’s it.

    It is interesting, but it does make one want to speculate on the decisions. Situations do dictate which pitcher to use, but as many injuries as the staff has had to have a guy that “fresh” calls for a little criticism, but because you asked I will stop.

  20. scott19 on July 21st, 2008 11:22 am

    the alleged brains of local sports journalists

    What alleged brains?

  21. lokiforever on July 21st, 2008 11:28 am

    Dave, these days, looking at almost any player or team stat, it’s hard not to criticize the M’s management. But, point well taken.

  22. JMHawkins on July 21st, 2008 12:19 pm

    Based on the relatively small sample size of ’08 PA vs right-handed hitters, Rhodes can get righties out just fine. His ’05 and ’06 seasons he was fine against righties too. I don’t know what his endurance and durability are like since the TJ surgery, but his skillset certainly doesn’t limit him to the LOOGY role.

  23. don52656 on July 21st, 2008 12:31 pm

    I wonder why Rhodes is even on the roster. He isn’t used often, he doesn’t face many batters, and he wasn’t even used during the game that we “forfeited” by using Burke as a pitcher.

    He’s 41 or so. He has no business being on the roster. He has a lot of company in that respect, IMO.

  24. pygmalion on July 21st, 2008 1:26 pm

    I don’t think that Rhodes is being used as a pure LOOGY. Looking at his splits he seems to have faced an almost equal number of righties as lefties (it’s 35-43 or so). He’s mainly facing lefties, but also a decent number of righties. All the evidence – including the game that Burke pitched in – suggests that they are concerned about his injured elbow. They don’t want to overwork him and see his arm fall off.

    Despite the general tenor of this thread, I don’t see any evidence that the M’s are using Rhodes poorly. Their usage makes perfect sense if they have health concerns, and there is some reason to think that they do (and that they should). The fact that the M’s make other bad decisions doesn’t mean that every decision they make is stupid.

  25. don52656 on July 21st, 2008 2:09 pm

    pygmalion, I agree with you to a degree. However, I questions what value an Arthur Rhodes has on your club if you have:

    1. A team that is 20+ games out of 1st place.
    2. 3 starters that can’t seem to get out of the 4th or 5th inning on a regular basis without getting “hurt”.
    3. You are only going to use him to get a batter or two out per appearance.
    4. He is 41 years old.

    He doesn’t have any long-term value to the club, he doesn’t have a whole lot of present value to the club, and he doesn’t have unique skills that contribute to the success of the club. Whatever value he may have to the M’s right now is represented by the trade value he carries, if any.

  26. pygmalion on July 21st, 2008 2:24 pm

    Whatever value he may have to the M’s right now is represented by the trade value he carries, if any.

    I would agree with that.

  27. Jeff Nye on July 21st, 2008 2:24 pm

    Well, regardless of whether the team is 20 games ahead, or 20 games behind, you should still be trying to win as many games as you can.

    (as previously discussed, I’m not an advocate of trying to tank games to improve draft position)

    Arthur Rhodes can help with that, but he’s being under-utilized at the moment.

    Meanwhile, Sean Green has 49 appearances for 54 IP (granted, Green is right-handed and Rhodes is left-handed, but I’m sure Green has thrown to some lefties).

    If you’re not going to use him, you should be trying to move him.

  28. JMHawkins on July 21st, 2008 2:43 pm

    Arthur Rhodes is 38 years old. I am 41. Also, he is left-handed and wears earrings. I’m right-handed and don’t. He also drives nicer cars than me. You really shouldn’t get us confused with each other.

  29. don52656 on July 21st, 2008 3:30 pm

    Arthur Rhodes is 38 years old

    I could reply in several ways, such as:

    1. The Mariners are treating him like he’s 41 years old.
    2. He may be 38 years old, but his arm is 41.

    However, the best reply is:

    3. Careless me. I’m wrong. He is 38 years old.

    My apologies.

  30. gwangung on July 21st, 2008 3:57 pm

    All the evidence – including the game that Burke pitched in – suggests that they are concerned about his injured elbow. They don’t want to overwork him and see his arm fall off.

    Hrm. Why is that? Shouldn’t that sort of treatment also have been extended to pitchers like Soriano> Or am I off base there?

  31. certaindoom on July 22nd, 2008 10:22 am

    Guys, you’re missing the important point, Rhoades provides the last link to the 2001 team, and has to be kept healthy for our late season pennant drive.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.