If Clutch Doesn't Exist, Why Do Key Innings?
Gagne's 82.1 innings no more key than any starter.
11/21/03
Phil Orr

You're going to have to read this with an open mind, let me state that right now. This is just something I've been thinking of now for a while because of the whole "clutch doesn't exist" thing. So if you're a fan of Derek Jeter (Are there any who read this site?) you might want to stop reading now as this whole article revolves around that premise.

Alright, we've all learned long ago that there is no inherent ability for a player to be "clutch" Sure they can have some seasons when they're better in clutch situations, but over the course of a career it all evens out. This leads to the logical extention of the argument that major leaguers are talented enough that they've reached a level that the pressure of a "key" situation won't really affect them. There's a notion that the better pitchers tend to end up starters, and yet relievers had a better ERA than starters, despite having to pitch in these "key" innings. Starters had a 4.52 ERA this season to relievers 4.15. Some of this can be attributed to the tiring of the starter, but overall the quality of starters and the higher ERA should cancel that out, and everything will even out in the long run. Anyway, the point is that if you follow the premise that clutch doesn't exist, it's unlikely that professional pitchers will pitch worse under the pressure of the 9th inning. If you're willing to accept that, keep reading.

Now this statement may make many of you throw down your official ballparkanalysis.com merchandise in disgust (Who am I kidding? Someone would have to buy something first... ), but, you know I like to challenge common thinking, so here it is. In a 3-1 game, every inning the starter pitched was just as key as the inning the closer pitched. I understand. You might need to read that again. And my e-mail address is on the writers page for all of you who are outraged by this claim, but allow me to expand on this. There are a few things that you must consider.

First off, this is in retrospect. Hindsight. For those of you who still don't get it... after the game is over and you know the outcome. This is the part which trips most people up when I try to discuss this theory, as they say "But the offense has x outs to get y runs with the starter, as opposed to only 3 outs to get those runs in the 9th." This is true. But all this shows is that the necessity for the offense to score a run increases as time runs out, which is fairly obvious. But look back on the game. I know most fans say "Damn it, if Soriano just didn't strike out with the bases loaded in the 4th..." or "Why do we continue to try to steal bases? If he hadn't have been thrown out in the 5th, we could have won..." and often these arguments are just thrown out for various reasons. But keep thinking this way, and translate it to the pitcher. Let's assume the Dodgers beat the Padres 3-1. It doesn't really matter where those runs were scored so long as the end result is 3-1, but I'll get to that later. Kevin Brown goes 8 innings, Gagne closes out the game. Now, one assumes the 9th to be the key inning because it's the last chance for the offense to score. They need to get at least 2 runs to continue the game, 3 to win. Gagne shuts them down... he's the hero in the clutch situation, and so forth. But consider this, remembering that we're assuming the pressure to be insignificant. Had Gagne allowed 3 runs, he would have blown the save and looked like a chump. It would be magnified because he wouldn't have a bunch of other shutout innings that game, and the Dodgers would have lost. Now consider that instead, Kevin Brown allows 3 more runs in the 4th inning. Guess what? The Dodgers lose. The only difference is Gagne never has the opportunity to blow the save.

Now hold on a second... what about offense? Well, in modern baseball "small ball" is slowly getting squeezed out, so although a case can still be made that the inning-by-inning score matters to determine how the offense plays, when teams take the "lay back and hit a homer" approach as it becoming more and more comming, inning-by-inning score does not matter as strategy will not change. 3rd or 9th, the offense is going up there looking to score as many runs as possible. There is, admittedly, a slight change in the offensive patterns of even the most "laid back" teams when it is a one run game and a runner is in scoring position. But ultimately, this only affects things slightly. The point stays that if either pitcher let up a certain number of runs, the team is going to lose. The reliever has a slightly tougher job in avoiding allowing said runs, but not nearly as much as the weight put on innings being "key" as evidenced by Gagne winning the Cy Young.

Well, if you've gotten this far, at least you're willing to listen. So we can now agree (I hope) that if either pitcher had have allowed 3 runs in that situation in any given inning, the team was almost certainly going to lose. So how, when looking at the box score, was the 9th any more "key"? Every inning of that game if the pitcher lets up 3 runs, they would have lost. I said earlier that it was just the overall score that mattered, and not when the runs were scored, or who allowed them, and I think by now you'll have an idea why. Even if Brown pitches 6 innings of shutout ball, with the Dodgers coming close to their season total and scoring a whopping 7 runs, if Dodgers relievers let up 5 runs in the 7th and 8th, and Gagne comes into the game to close it out, it looks as though Brown's innings weren't important and his 0 ER were wasted, and Gagne was the hero saving the game. But much like the other situation, the same holds true. Brown allows 3 runs, and they lose. Gagne allows 3 runs, they lose. Any of the chump relievers somehow allow 3 more runs without getting pulled... and they lose. Really all that matters to determine what was a "key inning" (we'll define that as 3 runs or less difference for the sake of defining what a close game is.) is the final score. So really, how many key innings will a starter have had, and how would it compare with Gagne? Well, let's take a look at the deserving Cy Young winner in my opinion, Jason Schmidt.

 

Vote	Name	IP	Key IP
1	Schmidt, Jason	207.2	123.0
2	Gagne, Eric	82.1	61.0

So in all fairness, in these situations Gagne was handed that were so important that he was awarded the Cy Young for not screwing them up, Schmidt had more than double the same number of innings, where if he gave up X number of runs (3 or less) the Giants lose the game. Frankly, even I didn't expect it to be that many. So all those of you who are doubting this, let me put it simpler... would Schmidt pitching solidly in that many innings of a close game plus everything else he did as a starter not make him much more valuable than Gagne?

I know a lot of you will disagree with this, so I'd like to know where I'm going wrong. I always hear reasons that are in-game, primarily "last chance to score" But once the outcome has been decided, someone please inform me how a closer's inning was any more valuable to the team than any of the rest of the innings in that game. In any event, this article wasn't planned, just something I kind of threw together before I prepare for a busy weekend where I question if I'll have the time to write any articles. I'd just like to close this by saying "My apologies to you Mr. Schmidt for common belief costing you the Cy Young. I appreciate what you did for your team. Pitch on, brother. Pitch on."