The value of the closer

[reillymcshane]

Interesting article by Dave Schoenfield at ESPN.

 

http://espn.go.com/blog/sweetspot/post/_/id/25231/papelbon-phillies-once-again-not-clutch

 

He talks about how overrated the 'closer' is. He notes that Papelbon has 15 saves - pretty impressive sounding. But then he points out that he's only protected three one-run leads.

 

I agree with him when he says that having a deep bullpen is more important than an elite 'closer'.

 

And I agree with him that you should use your best reliever in high leverage situations - not just a 'save' opportunity.

 

I know RRR likes 'roles' in his system. Veras pitches 7th inning. K-Rod pitches 8th inning. Axford pitches 9th. Many people thrive on knowing their place (and not just in baseball). So I can't hold it against RRR, or any manager, who arranges his pen this way. But it is kind of ridiculous that we get so caught up in the 'closer' role, when often times the most important inning in the 7th or whenever.

[3and2Fastball]

This is one of my favorite topics in baseball strategy.

 

Generally speaking, it is logical to use your best relief pitcher against your opponents best hitters late in the game, regardless of what inning it is. As an example, it'd be better to have Axford facing Votto in the 7th inning then wait and put him in during the 9th inning just because he is the designated "closer".

 

But then there is the human element of the game. Apparently some pitchers just don't have the mental makeup to pitch in the 9th inning in a "save situation".

[igor67]

Or we completely created the 9th inning mentality out of thin air and the hardest outs are against the middle of the order.

[adambr2]

Yeah, this is something I've gone back and forth on too.

 

When you consider straight statistics, it makes a lot more sense to use closers in high leverage situations. I especially hate that teams always "save" their closer in extra inning games for the lead under the pretense "if I used him already, who would I have save the game once we got a lead?" I also think it's a ridiculous concept that you need to use your best reliever to protect a 3 run lead with 3 outs to go. Any reliever worth having on the team should be able to retire 3 batters before allowing 3 runs the vast majority of the time.

 

That said, some relievers just do seem to have the makeup and mental mindsight to excel in "save situations". Maybe it's just a coincidence, but Axford has been very good in save situations this year -- not good in non-save situations.

[Thurston Fluff]

IF some one could tell me when the highest leverage situation in a game is going to come then I can see the logic in saving the best pitcher for it. Since there may be several and all are of unknown inportance until the game is over I don't how one would go about deciding what pitcher to use when. Is it too early to use yourt best guy in the fifth with two on nobody out and the team down by 2 runs? Or should you wait to see if the team can get ahead by one then use him if someone gets on base later in the game? It's so much easier to look back at a game, do some number crunching and say this pitcher would have bene most effectivly used in that spot. Yet that spot may not have been important at all if your team scored 6 runs in the next inning. You only know which spot is the highest leverage spot after the fact so it's pretty useless.

[adambr2]

Good point on not really knowing what the highest leverage situation will be, and to expand on that a bit, it certainly isn't as simple as having the bases loaded in the 7th and trotting your best reliever out there. Having a runner on first and 2 out in the 7th in a 3-3 game does not appear to be a high leverage situation, but then if the next guy singles and then your pitcher hits a batter, all of the sudden it's the highest leverage situation of the game and you've got the bases loaded and the game potentially on the line.

 

Well, you weren't going to start getting your closer hot 2 minutes ago, and you can't just let him start warming up every time the other team gets more than 1 runner on. If the next guy singles to plate 2 runs and you lose 5-3, you might look back and think that Axford should have been the guy to face the next batter, but the reality of it is that it's just not that easy.

[brettac1]

Or we completely created the 9th inning mentality out of thin air and the hardest outs are against the middle of the order.

Yes. This.

[reillymcshane]

Losing a game in the 9th has an added emotional/mental crush to it than losing it in the 6th or 7th or whenever else. I think that's why it's become such a huge.

[3and2Fastball]

Because it is true that you do not know how your opponent's bottom of the order is going to hit, the 7th inning might be too early to bring your best relief pitcher in against your opponent's 3-4-5 hitters (an example being Axford retires the 3-4-5 hitters in the 7th, but Loe/Veras give up lots of walks/hits in the 8th and now the 3-4-5 hitters are coming up again in the 9th)

 

However, once you get into the 8th inning, if your opponent's 3-4-5 hitters are coming up, that is when your best relief pitcher should come in....

 

I'd much rather have Axford vs a team's 3-4-5 in the 8th and then K-Rod vs a team's 6-7-8 in the 9th then the other way around

[igor67]

If one is going to make an allotment to the human element with relievers I think it makes far more sense to think about traits for guys who can come in mid inning and clean-up someone else's mess vs. guys who do better to start an inning. A lot of your throwers are better off with a fresh inning because they can come in wild and walk a guy before locking in. Doing that mid inning when you already have guys on base though is a huge issue. Similarly things like ability to hold runners on can be more of an issue mid inning. The numbers do seem to suggest that the 9th only pattern is not terribly far off the highest leverage use possible, so it is not a horrible strategy. That said I'd wager if you went to a bullpen filled with real men who come in and pitch it would be far easier to distribute the workload and with a solid rotation might let you drop a reliever in favor of a bench guy, which could be a bigger advantage than the modest increase in reliever leverage.

[Thurston Fluff]

I think it makes far more sense to think about traits for guys who can come in mid inning and clean-up someone else's mess vs. guys who do better to start an inning.

 

Good point. Parra seems to be a guy who does better coming in clean. Loe has a good sinker and is s decent guy to get a double play with. Having slots by inning for middle relief guys I think is less important than for closers or even setup men.

[HiAndTight]

Or we completely created the 9th inning mentality out of thin air and the hardest outs are against the middle of the order.

 

 

 

Which would assume that literally every closer I've ever heard has just flat out lied, making liars of Axford, Mo, and just about every other closer in the game.

 

It also would suggest that we created adreneline out of thin air as they're is certainly more pressure coming into a game when it's yours to win(finish off a win) or lose.

 

This is another area by which I don't believe, as much as people want to try, you can't just punch in numbers and say, "see, this guy should be your closer." David Robertson was unhittable last year. Didn't exactly have a glowing start to his replacement of Mo, yet Soriano who struggled as a SU man last year and became the 7th inning guy looks dominant again.

 

And while I don't have the numbers, everyone's seen it happen. You bring in a closer to get him some work with a 4-5 run lead and he's not nearly as sharp.

 

Some DO have the mentality, some don't.

 

The value in a closers lies with how good of a team you have. Obviously Rivera is great and very valuable. Is Brett Meyers that important in Houston?

 

So it's kinda relative.

[trwi7]

Of course they would lie about it. They wouldn't get paid as much if they didn't.

[igor67]

The problem is back when men were men pre 1987 those guys had just as much pressure adrenaline (anytime anywhere against anybody to come in and pitch) and the whole business. This is a case where the 'traditionalists' are slaves to a silly number and the analytic folks are calling for real machismo. At least some of the convolution is driven by the ballparks. Prior to Trevor Hoffman and the WWE style entrance music you did not have teams marketing the 9th inning. And hopefully as we all know marketing does in fact work and change our attitudes in this case its nearly perfect from the teams perspective. 9th inning leads are generally pretty safe, and with an above average pitcher coming in those odds go up. By emphasizing those 9th innings you are increasing the emotional attachment to likely wins, which is a pretty good if accidental marketing strategy. In this case it has turned relievers into shells of their former selves and the ability to go multiple innings or really pitch out of jams.

[DuWayne Steurer]

http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/g/gossari01.shtml

 

Look at a guy like Gossage, and look at his 1978 line. 63 games pitched, but 134 innings. And only 27 saves. (Which lead the league!)

 

Gossage certainly had a 'closer' mentality, but he wasn't relegated to only coming in in the 9th inning, with a 3 run lead or less.

 

I bet if you look up guys like Fingers, Sparky Lyle, Bruce Sutter, you'll find similar lines.

[rluzinski]

Losing a game in the 9th has an added emotional/mental crush to it than losing it in the 6th or 7th or whenever else. I think that's why it's become such a huge.

For the fans more for the players. Hell, emotional fans get pissed when players don't act crushed after a bad loss in one of their 162 games of the season.

[topper09er]

I think one of the reasons the "closer" has become such a huge deal is ESPN and similar hacks trying to promote Mariano Rivera as a the greatest and most valuable pitcher of all time. They need to act like pitching in the 9th inning is extremely difficult and only the most elite pitcher can do it.

[RockCoCougars]

I think that like with a lot of things, the closer role is overrated by the media and the casual fan- but it's gotten to be underrated by the Bill James faction. Bottom line, do you want John Axford or Tim Dillard pitching in the ninth, even if there was a 'higher leverage' situation in the 7th? That said, I hate defined roles (see Veras as the '7th inning guy', etc.) as much as the next guy, and it bugs me that it's against some unwritten rule that you can't use your closer for a couple of batters in the 8th. As with a lot of horrible things, a bunch of this can be laid at the feet of Tony Larussa. Back in the days of 'firemen', guys like Goose Gossage, etc. truly lived up to the 'closer' nickname.

[jerichoholicninja]

http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/g/gossari01.shtml

 

Look at a guy like Gossage, and look at his 1978 line. 63 games pitched, but 134 innings. And only 27 saves. (Which lead the league!)

 

Gossage certainly had a 'closer' mentality, but he wasn't relegated to only coming in in the 9th inning, with a 3 run lead or less.

 

I bet if you look up guys like Fingers, Sparky Lyle, Bruce Sutter, you'll find similar lines.

 

Those guys are before my time and I'm just curious if they would pitch on consecutive days or only 2 or 3 times a week? And on the days they didn't pitch how was the bullpen used? Was there a backup closer or something like that?

[RockCoCougars]

http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/g/gossari01.shtml

 

Look at a guy like Gossage, and look at his 1978 line. 63 games pitched, but 134 innings. And only 27 saves. (Which lead the league!)

 

Gossage certainly had a 'closer' mentality, but he wasn't relegated to only coming in in the 9th inning, with a 3 run lead or less.

 

I bet if you look up guys like Fingers, Sparky Lyle, Bruce Sutter, you'll find similar lines.

 

Those guys are before my time and I'm just curious if they would pitch on consecutive days or only 2 or 3 times a week? And on the days they didn't pitch how was the bullpen used? Was there a backup closer or something like that?

 

I'm pretty sure that Sparky Lyle won a Cy Young in New York with Gossage in the fold. Back then however, you have to consider that starters actually finished a lot of the wins. They weren't pulled in a 3-0 lead because they had 98 pitches after 7 innings.

[rluzinski]

I think that like with a lot of things, the closer role is overrated by the media and the casual fan- but it's gotten to be underrated by the Bill James faction. Bottom line, do you want John Axford or Tim Dillard pitching in the ninth, even if there was a 'higher leverage' situation in the 7th?

If the Brewers have a 3 run lead in the 9th because Axford induced a double play with the bases loaded to end the 8th inning, I'd be fine with Dillard if he was the best available pitcher left (unlikely).

 

Emotionally, I appreciate that it hurts more to blow a 2 or 3 run lead in the 9th than to fall a run behind in the 7th and ultimately lose. A manager should be trying to win the most games, however, not minimize hurt feelings. Making simple, set rules is just lazy managers (and upper management, to be fair) trying to protect themselves from public criticism.

[topper09er]

Those guys are before my time and I'm just curious if they would pitch on consecutive days or only 2 or 3 times a week? And on the days they didn't pitch how was the bullpen used? Was there a backup closer or something like that?

 

Gossage in 1978 had an average of 1.82 days rest/appearance and threw 134.1 IP. So 2.1 IP every 1.82 days

Axford last year only had 1.46 days rest/app but only threw 73.1 IP = 1.0 IP every 1.46 days

 

I think in Gossage's day he was the backup closer, the starting pitcher was the first string closer each game.

[reillymcshane]

Back in the 'old days' they called guys 'firemen' - not closers. Their job wasn't to close down the game, but to get the team out of tough situations. You do that in the 9th or 7th, it doesn't matter. That's when you want your best guy.

 

However, I can see the advantage of set 'roles'. I remember Bud Black or someone other manager saying he felt the relief pitchers worked best when they knew their role in the game. Do I buy that? I don't know. To some extent. But I also think it's a crutch. Some guys might need the crutch more than others.

 

Another point - teams might do well to break out of the 'closer' mentality if only for money. If Axford had 25 saves he gets paid a lot less than if he had 45.

[logan82]

If they want to know their role, you tell them they will be needed anytime after the 6th if our pitcher gets in a tough spot. What spot exactly, I odn't know but as the games went along I thing guys would get a feel for when that is.

[3and2Fastball]

This topic is one of the reasons why Warren Spahn deserves to be in the Top 5 of All-Time, in my opinion. In addition to pitching for 22 seasons with a career 3.09 ERA, and never getting hurt, he also pitched in relief quite a bit, too....most seasons he would start about 38 games, have around 20-25 complete games, and 3 or 4 saves, too