Nice job, Doc.
I'll give you my feeling on why managers (as a group) prefer "set roles" - and why this "may" actually be a benefit.
In short -- "set roles" simplifies the managers' job. While baseball may seem simple to the casual fan, anyone who has followed the game at length understands that there are dozens (if not hundreds) of variables changing from batter to batter (or pitch to pitch). The BEST managers are the ones who are thinking 3 moves ahead -- where the wrong decision at this moment has the potential to induce 3 even worse moves behind it.
As a chess player, you obviously understand the importance of getting everything you CAN take care of *BEFORE* the match out of the way -- learning the openings, the variations, the game theory -- that you do on YOUR time. When the game begins, a LOT of your analysis is done before the first move. You then attempt to employ it optimally -- which means following your pre-game plans and strategies TO A POINT.
Having "set roles" allows the manager to consider the "typical" patterns of ebb and flow and performance, and have a really good idea of what to do without the need to think it thru in the 30 seconds he has to make the critical decision with 2 on in the 6th. There is, of course, room for instinct and variation from the standard in some cases.
=========
Why I think this may actually be beneficial. Because PEOPLE tend to like stability. While individual personalities may vary, imagine having a job at a car dealership, where any day you go to work, your boss could choose to RANDOMLY assign your job for the day. Monday: Salesman -- Tuesday: Service Desk -- Wednesday: Shuttle driver -- Thursday: Loan Approvals -- Friday: Shipping & Receiving. It doesn't matter if you are equally adept (or inept) at each job -- the very idea of having no idea what you are going to be doing on a given day - for most people - is going to be draining.
Of course, there are personality types who may thrive under such a situation. But, by and large, most people would prefer becoming truly proficient in ONE thing over being mediocre in a bunch. While being a middle reliever or a closer may not be as different as Salesman and Shipping Clerk - I believe the concept is still valid. The very fact that we are discussing different situations sort of proves the point.
I recently brought up Boston's first attempt to employ the Bill James' "best man for the job at the moment" bullpen utilization plan, which largely failed. The counterpoint from many of the sabre crowd was that it didn't fail due to the deployment plan - it failed because the bullpen simply didn't have enough talent. There may be some truth in that - unless you open the door to the possiblity that the utilization plan may have actually contributed to the players in question performing UNDER their talent levels.
A manager's job -- ANY manager, baseball or otherwise, should be to maximize the potential of all of his staff to their fullest. If knowing what your job is going to be when you go to work makes you more comfortable, (and therefore more productive), why should the same not be true of the bullpen arms?
I know of no way to study this objectively. But I have heard anecdotal evidence -- where a pitcher "understood" his role to be "X" -- and on a random day, the manager decided to use him in role "Y". The surprise of the change completely threw the pitcher off his game and he got shelled. It was a purely mental issue -- just like the quiet guy in the back of the weekly meeting -- if the boss says out of the blue - "Joe, we're gonna let you do the presentation today," with no warning -- you're likely going to be watching a train wreck.
"I prefer set roles. We'll have to see." - Don Wakamatsu, asked about the 2009 Mariners' bullpen
It is one thing to talk about set roles when your relievers are (1) Daimajin, (2) Jeff Nelson slinging righty frisbees, and (3) Arthur Rhodes, throwing 97 mph lefthanded. Each reliever is Bespoke custom-tailored to the shoulders of the given situation you're in.
It's another thing to talk about set roles when you have 18 different average-solid, unpredictable righthand pitchers. Why would you "prefer set roles" when the relievers are obviously not measured-and-fit to ANY game situation, much less to any given template game situation?
Dr. Naka has pointed out, many times, that the Mariners hurt themselves by using "by-the-book," cliched, responses to basic "first-and-third, 1 out, righty up" game situations. He has thundered effectively from the pulpit that a 21st-century ballclub looks at player-specific data for its in-game situations. In other words, if it's Vlad Guerrero and Garret Anderson coming to bat, you want to select a pitcher based on batter-pitcher matchup history, on which OF's are playing that day, on what park you're in, etc.
Does everybody realize that "I prefer set roles" is the photo-negative of that? :- )
Don Wakamatsu is evidently a brainy manager. Why is he talking about "set roles," when his pitchers do not justify those, and game theory contradicts him?
...................
Understand: when an ML manager says "I prefer set roles," he is referring to the fact that he TRUSTS some pitchers and has others in the DOGHOUSE. Every ML manager who ever lived has managed by gut reactions to his relievers. (Yes, that was Saberamigo Freddy who just ran screaming into the night.)
By "set roles," Wakamatsu is saying that he'd like to see (for example) Tyler Walker have early success in the closer role, and Mark Lowe throw real well in the Jeff Nelson RH setup role, and Ryan Rowland-Smith throwing well in the Arthur Rhodes role, and Roy Corcoran throw well in the Shigetoshi Hasegawa role, and David Aardsma coming along pretty nicely in the Steve Karsay role. (Any resemblance of that sequence to reality would be sheerly a matter of brilliance on Wakamatsu's part.)
Wakamatsu is saying he'd like to have 4-5 guys giving him a good feeling about what they're about to do that night.
..................
By "we'll have to see," he means, "And we'll see if this motley crue doesn't have me going through a full pack of chew each night. I'm going to count myself lucky if they get anybody out, much less if they settle in as hosses we can ride."
.................
If this were Strat-O-Matic, if there were no such thing as clutch performance ... then no "set roles" would exist for a group of such comparably-talented relievers.
But life is complex. During the season, you'll hear constantly, "Vlad was .320 against Walker lifetime, but only .240 against Aardsma, so Aardsma was obviously the CORRECT decision." But what if Vlad was .360 against Aardsma in that split called "last year"? What does Vlad bat against Walker, in that specific split that goes "Walker is having a hot month right now"? What does Vlad bat against Aardsma, in that split that goes "Aardsma has walked 7 men in his last 10 innings"?
There are a lot of times I trust Grandmaster intuition over the computer. Bullpen matchups are one of those times. I'm glad that Wakamatsu is talking in terms of his gut in the bullpen. Assuming that the new regime is as good as cyber-Seattle thinks it is, Waka-san's intuition is liable to be a lot more effective than a 3-ring binder full of simplistic lifetime splits.
Cheers,
Dr D
................
images: http://cache.daylife.com/imageserve/07GN87H9YW55i/610x.jpg
Comments
In short — “set roles” simplifies the managers’ job.
That too.
If knowing what your job is going to be when you go to work makes you more comfortable, (and therefore more productive), why should the same not be true of the bullpen arms?
And that too. No doubt. Though as you're aware, the relievers who do complain about "no set roles" are, 90% of the time, actually complaining that they're getting garbage time. :- )
..............
This is kinda neither here nor there, but did you ever read "Ball Four," Sandy? :- )