I agree the sample is small, but if I were Bruce Bochy I wouldn’t ignore it. Frankly I suspect most relief pitchers would perform better if they were allowed to pitch every other day or so. Naturally, game circumstances don’t fully allow that. But I think if managers made that more their goal — as opposed to slotting pitchers into boxes and trying to use them exclusively in those boxes — they would get better performance from their relievers — and fewer arm problems.

One of the biggest problems in baseball though is that there seems to be great fear of trying anything that goes against “the book.” IMO “the book” should be constantly be being rewritten and improved.

they’re both pitchers.

It makes sense that, with inconsistent use a relief pitcher would struggle.

Combine that with the results Sharksrog has observed and that constitutes a great hypothesis.

Alas, we will probably never get to do the experiment.

Looking at Brian’s 16 non-save situations last season, he yielded one run in 6.2 innings over seven appearances when he pitched every third game or more frequently. He was scored upon in only one of the seven games. In his nine non-save appearances last season in which he pitched every fourth day or less frequently, he yielded 12 earned runs in 7.1 innings over nine appearances.

So you are absolutely right that Brian pitched his worst in non-save situations — but the shorter rest benefit still seems to apply. Brian is at his best in short-rest situations, regardless of whether a save is on the line or not. He is at his worst when he is pitching on long rest AND no save is involved.

But he still pitched poorly with long rest when saves WERE involved.

I put together a pattern — one I had mentioned at mid-season when I first discovered this phenomenon with Brian — which said he would pitch no more than two days in a row but would pitch at least every third day. Had he followed that schedule, he would have made 11 more appearances - and missed only two save opportunities. That’s two out of 47. We don’t know for sure, but he likely would have pitched better. And with a more even workload, he could have thrown more innings (although I would have endeavored to use him for perhaps only one or two batters in non-save and two or three-run situations).

To me, more and better while giving up only two save opportunities is a no-brainer. (And it is no-brainers for which I am particulary well qualified. :)

After Brian was called back up in 2007, the Giants DID use him on a schedule very similar to that. He was used in both save and non-save situations. He yielded runs in only three of something like 18 appearances.

There is no way to know for sure if this would work better or not. But given that the Giants aren’t going to be competitive next season anyway, why not give it a try? If it works, Brian could be of even more value in the next decade when it should really matter. If it doesn’t work, what harm has been done?

Not only that, but if it works for Brian, there is the possibility it will also work for other relievers. It may be that the more regular the work they can receive, the better MOST of the relievers will be. And if the relievers become better, not only will they likely do their set up work better in order to provide Brian a few more save opportunities, but on the rare occasions when they have to save a game instead of Brian to preserve his workload, they should be even better prepared to do the job.

To me it appears to be a win, win, win situation. And more winning would be a good thing these days. In about three seasons, those numbers of wins will actually MATTER!

Good points all around here, Foothill. Surprisingly, when I ran Brian’s season after his first appearance using him no more than two days in a row and pitching him at least every third day, I found him missing only two save opportunities.

To me, there are five main types of saves.

The first is the one-inning or less three-run save — the one where the tying run is in the hole when the pitcher enters in the ninth or the bottom half of an extra inning. Since the injury to Robb Nen, the Giants have used a handful of guys who were quite capable of completing these easy saves a high percentage of the time.

The second is the one-inning or less two-run save — the one in which the tying run is on deck when the pitcher enters in the ninth of bottom half of an extra inning. Again, the Giants have shown that it doesn’t really take a great closer to complete these saves consistently.

The third is the one-inning or less one-run save. Here the potential tying run is always at the plate when the closer pitches, even closer than that to circling the bases or has already circled the bases and blown the closer’s save. I wouldn’t say these saves are exceptionally difficult, but they’re certainly not easy, either. A closer who can consistently secure over 80% of these saves is usually pretty good.

The fourth is that rarity, the multi-inning save. Depending on the score, these saves can be anywhere from difficult to rather easy. But I would rather use my closer for a two-inning, one-run save than “waste” him on a three- or probably even a two-run, one-inning save.

The fifth is the most difficult, where the tying run is already on base. The most difficult, of course, is potential tying run on third, potential winning run on second and no outs.

I think baseball could improve itself if it developed a point system for saves. To be fair, it would probably be good to award points for holds and in the late innings, even for maintaining a tie. Such a system might wake a manager up to the value of how he is using his closer.

IMO, if a closer needs work, use him for the three-run save. If not, don’t waste him. The decision on the two-run save may depend in part on which hitters are coming up. Use the guy for the one-run or tougher saves — maybe even pitching him three days in a row on rare occasions — but don’t waste him so much on the easy saves.

Right now, closers just want to build their save totals. If relief efforts were awarded points in more concert with the actual value of those efforts, perhaps closers in particular would be used more judiciously.

It is conceivable that the best time to use a “closer” would be in the sixth inning of a tie game or with a one- or two-run lead — with no outs in the SIXTH inning. That may turn out to be the game’s true “critical moment.” Put the wrong pitcher into that situation, and you likely won’t have a win for the closer to close.

If a team truly wants to specialize as the use of set up men and closers implies, go to five starters, five finishers and two closers.

Pair up a starter with a finisher, having the finisher be as much of a complement to the starter as possible. Ideally, for instance, a right-handed power pitcher such as Tim Lincecum or Matt Cain would be paired with a lefty Kirk Rueter type. The hope would be that once the starter left the game, the finisher could indeed finish the game out. If troubles developed, either the left-handed closer or the right-handed closer could close out the game as appropriate. Both could be used if necessary.

Every pitcher on the staff would have a defined role, each would get fairly regular work, starters would be motivated to perform well, lest they switch roles with their finisher, finishers would be motivated to pitch well to get in as much work as possible and perhaps get promoted to starter, and closers could indeed clean up the messes the finisher made.

Opposing lineups might well get turned around during the game when a lefty replaced a righty (or vice versa), and the potential would be to turn the lineup around twice if the starter, the finisher AND the closer were used. If BOTH closers were used, the lineup could theoretically be turned around three different times.

My point is that there are several ways to think outside the box. In sports such as football, basketball and hockey, they say the best coaches are the ones who can put in systems that best utilize their personnel, regardless of the natures of said personnel. Does it make sense to use the same old system for all 30 baseball teams — or would at least some of the teams benefit from at least examining some more creative approaches?

Baseball has changed a LOT over the years. Pitchers once pitched over 600 innings in a season. Now no one pitches HALF that many frames. But baseball has been slow to change the way it uses its pitchers — and once a pattern is developed, that pattern is used by virtually every team for a long time. Isn’t it about time baseball began thinking of more creative ways to use its pitchers? It often doesn’t use its best pitches at the most important time — and yet arm injuries abound, indicating the patterns in which pitchers are used may be far from optimal.

And to the benefit off the Giants, the teams that can best risk experimenting with changes are teams that aren’t in contention. If the experiment fails, so what? A better draft choice the next season? And if it succeeds — even partially — the result could provide the edge the team needs when it becomes competitive to take that competitiveness all the way to a winning World Series.

Which is better? To go by the book — or to rewrite it with positive changes and effective options?