A question about Closers

[cameron25]

So my girlfriend and I were having a discussion about Trevor Hoffman and the importance of closers. I feel that they come in in pressure situations and do a truly tough job, however, she asked me why they don't come in when the team is losing instead of when the team is winning. Her reasoning is that when the team is losing, why not put in the pitcher who won't allow runs so that the team has a better chance at a comeback, instead of preserving a lead which can't be too hard. I disagree with her but can't give her a reason why they come in with a lead rather than when they are in a deficit. Any help would be appreciated.

[rluzinski]

You want to put your best relievers in when they have the greatest influence on the odds of winning a game. Let's compare two scenarios:

 

1. Down by 1, top of the 7th inning, down by 1, the opposition has the bases loaded and 1 out.

 

2. Middle of the 9th, up by 3.

 

In the first scenario, the trailing team still has a decent shot at winning the game if they can get out of the inning. In the second, the elite closer is going to get the win about 2% more often than an average one, so it's almost a waste to use him there.

[strawbossisevil]

Agreed. The most valuable reliever is most likely not the closer, but the second best reliever who comes in during the most difficult and high leverage situations.

[UeckerAddict]

What are the odds your team wins if it's trailing in the 8th inning? 10%-20%?

 

What are the odds your team wins if it's winning in the 8th inning? 80%-90%

 

Why would you consistently wear out your best pitcher in games you have little chance of winning. In baseball, you HAVE to win if the opportunity is there.

We are in first by one game right now. Would we be in first if we used Trevor Hoffman in 13 games we were losing and used Villanueva in Hoffman's 13 save situations (granted, we haven't lost 13 games since Hoffman came of the DL)? In baseball you have to win when you put yourself in situations where you're supposed to win, rather than using up your best weapons in kamikaze suicide missions "just in case you come back."

 

Take last year:

 

NL WILD CARD

Brewers win wild card (26 blown saves)

Mets finish a game behind the Brewers (29 blown saves)

Cardinals finish 4 games behind the Brewers (31 blown saves)

 

NL WEST

 

LA Dodgers -- (20 blown saves)

Arizona 2 (23 blown saves)

 

NL EAST

 

Philadelphia -- (15 blown saves)

NY Mets 3 (29 blown saves)

 

AL EAST

 

Tampa Bay -- (15 blown saves)

Boston 2 (22 blown saves)

 

AL CENTRAL

 

Chicago -- (18 blown saves)

Minnesota 1 (23 blown saves)

 

I know blown saves aren't always charged to the closer, but this pattern amplifies the fact that teams who kept leads simply made the playoffs over teams who didn't. 7 of the 8 playoff teams last year had fewer blown saves than the team immediately behind them (the only exception was the AL wild card where the Red Sox had more blown saves than the Yankees).

[DuWayne Steurer]

Arguable points all around. A counter argument to using the closer in the 9th could be this example.

 

8th inning, winning by 1, opposing team's 3-4-5 coming up, and you use the 8th inning guy. I'm sure that 8th inning guy has a *better* chance of getting the 6-7-8 with no damage (presumably in the 9th inning) and your "best" reliever (the closer) should be used in that high leverage situation in the 8th.

[rluzinski]

Why would you consistently wear out your best pitcher in games you have little chance of winning.

 

Why would you consistently wear out your closer in a game that would almost certainly result in a win (3 run lead in 9th). Like I said, an elite closer makes that situation a win 2% more often than an average reliever. You don't think a manager could find a more important spot to use his best reliever?

 

The problem is that people value holding onto a lead more than they do trying to win a game in which they are losing. What you need to look at is the swing in win probability, not just the chance of winning.

 

I know blown saves aren't always charged to the closer, but this pattern amplifies the fact that teams who kept leads simply made the playoffs over teams who didn't.

 

That tells you absolutely nothing about the optimal use of your best reliever. All it tells you is that if you win more games, you have a better chance of making the playoffs.

[giffted1]

Her reasoning is that when the team is losing, why not put in the pitcher who won't allow runs so that the team has a better chance at a comeback, instead of preserving a lead which can't be too hard. I disagree with her but can't give her a reason why they come in with a lead rather than when they are in a deficit. Any help would be appreciated.

According to this study, she's right in some cases. It shows that a closer has more impact pitching down 1 in the 8th at home than up 3 in the 9th.

[jeffy]

Why would you consistently wear out your closer in a game that would almost certainly result in a win (3 run lead in 9th)?

Of course, the only answer is because he will get credit for a "save".

[BrewCrewRising]

I remember reading an interview with Billy Beane in the last couple of years where the writer asked him why even the A's have "closers" when even the Moneyball model sees them as over-used or over-perscribed.

 

The essense of his reply what that what the closer provided was an emotional support. If you lose a game in the 9th inning that it's worse than losing it in the 7th inning.

 

I wish I could find the link. I remember being surprised that a stats based GM would acknowledge the emotional significance of the closer. He might have been talking about in general though, and not as how it applies to the A's.

[logan82]

Every MLB manager designates a closer. I hate to admit it, but the Cubs have done a good job bringing in guys to be the closer while keeping their best reliever free. Using Wood as the closer and bringing in Gragg this year. The only way to keep your best guy free is if he is young and you bring in a veteran. Unless a closer completely sucks, there isn't really a need to have your best guy do it. I know Marmol is overrated and doesn't really throw strikes. He has had good results and is very effective though.

[SoCal Brew Crew Fan]

Great point logan...that's why everyone was rooting for Gregg to blow up so they would be forced to put Marmol in the closers role and out of the most valuable role that he has right now. Statistically everything points to putting the best pitcher in the highest leverage situation, but there is probably something to having the one closer in the 9th for the emotional significance. Hoffman seems to provide that, but as an example if Villy is our best reliever outside of Hoffman, he should be used when the situation warrants not just the 8th inning guy like Yost would do. I think that's a positive that Macha has shown for the most part.

 

I wouldn't have had a problem setting Hoffman up for the 7th last night after Coffey for the 6th with a 2 run lead...use him for the meat of the order rather than waiting for the 9th if you are really in a pickle with the pen.

[joepepsi]

Managers like to have a designated closer because it deflects accountability away from them when the closer blows the game. That 2% of the time when the leading team loses in the 9th isn't the manager's fault if the "closer" is the pitcher who fails. The manager can shrug and say, "We had our guy in there".

 

If Macha were to use Hoffman in a high leverage situation, say the 7th, then Villy blows the game in the 9th, there would be a general perception that Macha lost the game with his "unorthodox" moves.

 

This is a big reason why mediocre managers often have clearly defined roles for every reliever and stick to them despite the particulars of a given situation. If it doesn't work out, he can always shrug in postgame and say, "We had our guy in there".

[logan82]

I honestly see no reason to use Hoffman outside of the closer's role. He seems to be a one inning pitcher. I prefer setup guys who can go more than an inning so that yo can bring them in during the 6th or 7th innings and they can go more than an inning.

[naivin]

I believe having that dominator in the 9th inning also creates a little more urgency on the opposing hitters to try to get a lead prior to so they don't have to face him, etc. i think it makes the entire bullpen's job a bit easier as hitters try to perhaps do a bit too much in the 6th, 7th, 8th inning because they know that guy is lurking.

 

I also agree with the points about using certain guys in key hot spots when you need them. Marmol being the obvious example, and Coffey being the Brewers' version. That said, I think certain guys are better suited for that role vs. the closer role and vice versa.

[jazzytrav]

I hate to admit it, but the Cubs have done a good job bringing in guys to be the closer while keeping their best reliever free.

 

Absolutely, and I can't believe how long they've been able to pull this off. This is where bullpen payroll management gets completely screwed up. Marmol is the most valuable reliever they have, coming in to pitch the most valuable situations, yet he's probably losing millions of dollars by doing it because he won't have the "saves".

 

For the most part, I don't really care for the designated "8th inning guys" or "closers". I always get a little upset in a close game when the closer is left in to pitch to 3 lefties in a row because "he's the closer!" Almost every game should be different, as every game and every team gives a different situation. Sometimes a LOOGY should get the save.

[UeckerAddict]

Why would you consistently wear out your closer in a game that would almost certainly result in a win (3 run lead in 9th).

The problem is that people value holding onto a lead more than they do trying to win a game in which they are losing. What you need to look at is the swing in win probability, not just the chance of winning.

I know blown saves aren't always charged to the closer, but this pattern amplifies the fact that teams who kept leads simply made the playoffs over teams who didn't.[/i]

That tells you absolutely nothing about the optimal use of your best reliever. All it tells you is that if you win more games, you have a better chance of making the playoffs.

People who want to devalue the save statistic always refer to a save as "a three run lead in the ninth." Sometimes it is, but it's ludicrous to suggest that this is the universal situation.

 

By the rationale you are using, it was fine to pitch Julio in the sixth last night. I know most people on this board didn't think so. It's true, I put more value in winning the games we are up 2 late in the game than down 2 late in the game, because in a 162 game season you must when the games you are supposed to win. Not throwing Hoffman when you are down 2 does not mean you are throwing in the towel. You just hope to win the games you should and have a few comeback wins along the way.

 

Finally, the blown save stat tells you that teams that didn't blow leads late in the games miraculously won more games. Sounds obvious, right? It is, but it shows that you must keep the lead late in games to win. How do you do this? Throw your best pitchers.

 

I'm not saying you should never use your best when you are behind, but the original poster suggested the argument was to throw your best when you are losing INSTEAD of when you are winning.

[jeffy]

The only way to keep your best guy free is if he is young and you bring in a veteran.

 

I think doing it that way is sensible, if there has to be a closer an older guy that can still pitch one inning, like Hoffman, is a good way to do it. It gives him a defined role, so he can have his ancient http://forum.brewerfan.net/images/smilies/wink.gif body ready to go, he presumably knows when he needs a day off, etc. Last season, with Gagne, would have been the same sort of situation, if he had been able to do the job. I don't know if Hoffman would be as good as he has been, if he were being used whenever it was felt he was the best option, like the rest of the bullpen.

 

 

[Fatter than Joey]

This is a big reason why mediocre managers often have clearly defined roles for every reliever and stick to them despite the particulars of a given situation. If it doesn't work out, he can always shrug in postgame and say, "We had our guy in there".

 

I think it is more than the managers --

 

I am sure DM and MA are loving the atmosphere, the merch sales, and everything that goes with Hells Bells being played in the bottom of the 9th.

 

You can't play Hells Bells in the middle of the 7th inning.

 

I certainly agree with most if not all of Logan's BP theories -- however, I think part of how you pay for a guy like Hoffman, is building up the "experience" of having a great closer.

[rluzinski]

I brought up the 3 run save because that is the worst time to use your best reliever. Using your best reliever to try and get that 1 run save is very often te best way to utilize them, so why would I object to that? Closer usually have the highest LI (leveraged index, see Fangraphs) on the team, which measures how important a particular point in a game is. So, the save stat isn't the worst way to measure leverage but it can be improved.

 

And I think some people need to think harder about trying to correlate saves and blown saves to making the playoffs. Saves = wins and blown saves = loses. We already know that wins and loses corelate to making the playoffs. This discussion is about how to use you best reliever to maximize wins.

 

Teams that have the best record on Sundays make the playoffs more.

Teams that come from behind to win in the 9th ....

Win the most 1 run games...

Win after being behind...

Hold on to the most 6th inning leads...

Have the best record in extra inning games...

 

It's like the stat about the Brewers record in games they HR in. A HR is worth 1.4 runs on average, so of course they have a good record in those games! It's not giving you any real insight.

[Legacy25GT]

I seem to remember some of what Beane's philosophy on closers is... I lent moneyball to a friend, so I can't check it again, but I seem to remember that he used the closer more as trade bait.... I think he called it "turning the closer" IIRC.... he would inflate a pitcher's value by letting him rack up a pile of saves and then trade him for more than what he's worth.

[logan82]

I think of bringing in the veteran to close over the young guy as more of a ego thing. If you just used your 2nd best guy to close, your best guy is going to be very upset because Saves=more money. If that 2nd best guy has closing experience it is much easier to tell your best guy, "well so and so has closing experience." Not putting your best guy closing is screwing him out of money even though he may be helping the team more. Generally I think you can get away with a lesser reliever in the closers role. As we have witnessed over the years, good closers can come from anywhere.

 

The way closers are used now, I don't think they should be multi-inning guys either. It seems to be a waste to take a good reliever who can go multiple innings and put him in a one inning role.

[rousieboy]

I'd like to compare it to playing blackjack. If you are sitting on the right of the dealer at a crowded table and are dealt say, a pair of Kings, then you don't split them if the dealer is in a position to possibly bust. The strategy is to just take the win, don't rock the table, and get out of that hand with a W. A pair of Kings on the dealer's left or in the middle of the table that is split receives far less condemnation than someone sitting on 3rd Base looking to double up some winnings.

Take the W, make the game shorter, go home with some money. That is the perceived role of the closer.

[rluzinski]

I'd like to compare it to playing blackjack. If you are sitting on the right of the dealer at a crowded table and are dealt say, a pair of Kings, then you don't split them if the dealer is in a position to possibly bust. The strategy is to just take the win, don't rock the table, and get out of that hand with a W. A pair of Kings on the dealer's left or in the middle of the table that is split receives far less condemnation than someone sitting on 3rd Base looking to double up some winnings.

 

I think that analogy doesn't work in one important respect. First and foremost, you don't split 10's because it would result in less overall money won. So it's not just the safe strategy, it's the correct one. In contrast, if you always play to maximize saves for your best reliever, it results in less overall wins for your team. It's the safe strategy (by avoiding possible criticism from fans and the media, who don't know the optimal strategy) but it's not the correct one.

 

I hope no one ever uses less than optimal strategy while playing blackjack simply to placate the other players. Maybe higher stakes blackjack is different, but I'm always amazed by how angry players can get at other players during low stakes blackjack. What the other players do is completely irrelevant over the long haul. It will help you as often as it hurts you. Do people willing to put up the big bucks realize that?

[rousieboy]

I don't know, but I like splitting whenever I can. I don't feel I lose from this tactic, it keeps the game fresh for me, but I don't sit on the dealer's right...ever...just because, like you said, low end players get so agitated at that move. I also chip the dealer in and tip after hitting 21 or getting a fresh Newcastle. Interesting rebuttal on the closer analogy, I will consider it.

[jeffy]

I've never played Blackjack with anything but friends and family. Why in the worl would any other player care if I split a pair of kings? And why would it matter what seat I am in?

 

Each player is only playing against the dealer and the dealer has no choice about taking additional cards or not. Do people think it somehow magically affects the odds if the dealer gets the next card out of the deck vs. getting a later card.

 

Is this like how BA can magically end a no-hitter by mentioning it in the booth. BTW, his magic is very powerful, he even did this to Boston the other day from the booth in FL. The words "no-hitter" came out of his mouth, I immediatly flipped the TV to ESPN to check it out and somebody was getting a hit.