Brewers Closer Role

[Dnye23]

I want to believe in Axford, but it's hard. It too early to replace him, but how long of a leash does he get? Does Henderson take over? Or Kintzler?

[Patrick425]

I really like Axford's character and from what I have seen in interviews he's a good guy. I feel bad for what he is going through on the mound. It's painful to watch. I don't understand the boos. This isn't like a guy who is not putting forth effort or even a hitter who continues to show no patience at the plate and consistently swings at bad pitches. He's not trying to have bad location on his pitches, it's just happening.

 

Having said all of that, the hook has to be quick this year. He clearly had nothing last night. Next time out he may go 1-2-3, but you can't have that kind of inconsistency from your closer. He really has not caused any Brewer losses yet, but my hope is that the Brewers don't wait around until he has blown 4 or 5 games before they make a move.

 

My problem is that I'm not really a Henderson believer (although, I think he would probably be a better option than Axford at this point) and I don't really see any other real closer candidates on the roster at this point.

[Thurston Fluff]

I don't think you see closer candidates until they close for a while. So I'm less worried about who will do it than how long they wait. Obviously it's a bit early to worry yet. The home runs are something that is carrying over from last season. That does concern me.

[jerichoholicninja]

I've made my feelings about Axford quite clear in the past and he's toast now. Take him out of the 9th inning and then trade him at the deadline or non-tender him after the season if there are no takers. Ron just needs to go with matchups at the end of the game. Enough of this needing a "proven" closer crap. Just use whoever can get outs.

[umphrey]

Well Axford has a career 6.41 ERA in March/April and a 2.41 in May. In 2010 he didn't pitch until May, in his stellar 2011 he stunk until May, and of course last year he stunk until May as well. I think that inspires a bit of hope.

[patrickgpe]

if rogers could gain some velocity, i'd love to see him get a try once he is back. I guess i'd go with Henderson in the short term, but he didn't have a great spring and there is nobody else on the roster i trust.

[brewmann04]

I think they will give another week and then see where they will go but Patrick has a intresting point.

[nate82]

I have more confidence in Figaro being successful as the closer than I do with Axford or Henderson.

[H4P]

Why do you have to have a "closer" and a "set up guy"? I know this is the way it is now but I don't understand why it has to be this way. The whole aspect of a "guy" having a "role" in the bullpen drives me nuts. It takes all the responsibility off anyone by just saying "He's our guy."

 

Axman doesn't have it right now. I know it's 2 appearances. I know things can change. But when did we become so obsessed with worrying about feelings or egos or whatever that you can't just put someone in there without causing a full blown conspiracy theory?

[TooLiveBrew]

Why do you have to have a "closer" and a "set up guy"? I know this is the way it is now but I don't understand why it has to be this way. The whole aspect of a "guy" having a "role" in the bullpen drives me nuts. It takes all the responsibility off anyone by just saying "He's our guy."

You nailed it with that last part, and I couldn't agree more with you that the labels/'roles' just suck. I think it's due to equal parts that managers can remove some decision-making from the equation with labels, and that (due to part A) players have grown to expect those labels to be issued. In reality, the first organization willing to commit to playing matchups & deviate from set roles with its bullpen is going to reap some sweet rewards imo.

 

I also agree with nate82 on Figaro. He's looked filthy so far.

[joepepsi]

I have more confidence in Figaro being successful as the closer than I do with Axford or Henderson.

He's the guy if Axford fails. I agree Ax can start slow, but if we are in the 2nd week of May and he is still frightening on the mound, you go with Figaro.

[SoupTown]

This idea that Tony La started - you should put all your eggs in one basket and trot that same basket out there every slim lead drives me NUTS. Axford is such a simple animal to predict. When he gets going well, he goes well for dozens of games on the trot. When he is shakey - he will be shakey (BAD SHAKEY) until he has three or four dominating innings. Then his long good streak will come.

 

So, after a poor spring and a poor first couple of outings (BAD SHAKEY) you need to put him as a mop up guy somewhere until he shows three or so dominent outings.

 

From an MLB reliever point of view (they are grown men and professional sportsman), I am flabbergasted so, so many guys can pitch the 7th... but not the 8th... or the 8th... but not the 9th. From a budget point of view I would simply like to have a bunch of ABOVE average relievers earning, say 3 mill each. And you mix and match situations depending who is 'on' and who is 'off'.

 

99% of baseball thinkers say CLUTCH (for a batter) does not exist. So why does CLUTCH exist for pitchers (a reliever who pitches well only in the 9th). So, I would contend that anyone who thinks closers need to be 'the one guy' should study batting splits. And they should find out the guys that bat well in the 9th, but not the early innings and vice versa. So you need to have a bench of batters that are indeed CLUTCH. If closers exist, there must be bundle of pinch hitters that only hit well as pinch hitters in high leverage situations. (now dare we explain why a run in the 7th is worth less than a run in the 8th and much less than a run in the 9th).

 

And let us say there was indeed a reliever that was amazingly 'ON' at some stage. Or maybe just that good (say Rivera-like). You have a three runs lead in the 7th. The other mob has managed to load the bases with one out. I would love the ACE to come in and keep the three run lead. And let some (slightly) lesser guy pitch with the three run lead in the 8th and 9th.

 

Now after my speech, the practicality of it all shows that we cannot find any recent good teams that went 'closer by committee' and were OK. Heck, we cant even have 8th inning by committee. This is just weird.

 

Poor Ax. Just let him pitch in the middle until he shows his three great innings. It aint rocket surgery.

[Outlander]

I hope Axford can turn it around but if not it would be great if Figaro did well as the closer. He would be a cheap option for a couple of years at a time when they could use some low salary guys.

[turnbow59]

When he is shakey - he will be shakey (BAD SHAKEY) until he has three or four dominating innings.

 

Thank You!! This is exactly how Derrick Turnbow was in 2007. When he was bad, boy was he bad. It was obvious from the get go though, he would walk the first batter and normally put the next guy on too. If Ned Yost would have seen his pattern and taken him out right then, it would have saved a few games. Turnbow was a decent pitcher in 2007, he was third in the NL in holds. Its just people only remember his blow up games.

 

P.S. Derrick Turnbow is one of my all time favorite brewers. I don't know why, but I just liked the guy even though he was here for only three seasons. I tend to defend him quite often because I feel he was a better pitcher than most give him credit for. He used to get booed endlessly, even after he said that the crowd booing him every time used to get into his head. Nice crowd there...

[Oxy]

This idea that Tony La started - you should put all your eggs in one basket and trot that same basket out there every slim lead drives me NUTS. Axford is such a simple animal to predict. When he gets going well, he goes well for dozens of games on the trot. When he is shakey - he will be shakey (BAD SHAKEY) until he has three or four dominating innings. Then his long good streak will come.

 

So, after a poor spring and a poor first couple of outings (BAD SHAKEY) you need to put him as a mop up guy somewhere until he shows three or so dominent outings.

 

From an MLB reliever point of view (they are grown men and professional sportsman), I am flabbergasted so, so many guys can pitch the 7th... but not the 8th... or the 8th... but not the 9th. From a budget point of view I would simply like to have a bunch of ABOVE average relievers earning, say 3 mill each. And you mix and match situations depending who is 'on' and who is 'off'.

 

99% of baseball thinkers say CLUTCH (for a batter) does not exist. So why does CLUTCH exist for pitchers (a reliever who pitches well only in the 9th). So, I would contend that anyone who thinks closers need to be 'the one guy' should study batting splits. And they should find out the guys that bat well in the 9th, but not the early innings and vice versa. So you need to have a bench of batters that are indeed CLUTCH. If closers exist, there must be bundle of pinch hitters that only hit well as pinch hitters in high leverage situations. (now dare we explain why a run in the 7th is worth less than a run in the 8th and much less than a run in the 9th).

 

And let us say there was indeed a reliever that was amazingly 'ON' at some stage. Or maybe just that good (say Rivera-like). You have a three runs lead in the 7th. The other mob has managed to load the bases with one out. I would love the ACE to come in and keep the three run lead. And let some (slightly) lesser guy pitch with the three run lead in the 8th and 9th.

 

Now after my speech, the practicality of it all shows that we cannot find any recent good teams that went 'closer by committee' and were OK. Heck, we cant even have 8th inning by committee. This is just weird.

 

Except that under La Russa (the guy you say started it all), St. Louis has been a decent or better (a couple of WS titles) the last few years and never really had a designated closer throughout those years.

[Thurston Fluff]

I might be one of the few but I agree with roles to a large degree. Obviously you have to have someone who can fulfill the role effectively but having roles allows pitchers to get comfortable to being used in certain situations. If repetition is key to mechanics then it shouldn't be too far a leap to think customary roles aids mental effectiveness as well. Especially considering relievers can't practice on the side. They don't have the benefit of bullpen sessions like starters do.

While there is some merit to matchups, outside of lefty righty, I'm not sure what constitutes viable matching? Numbers against certain guys is always a small sample. The hot hand is no better. What constitutes a hot hand and how can anyone predict when one starts or ends? Is two bad games in a row a cold streak or does it take two weeks to think so? How long a leash do you give a guy who pitched well for half a season vs someone who had a hot month? Would anyone think it better to pitch a hot Manny Parra than a cold Aroldis Chapman?

[Oxy]

I might be one of the few but I agree with roles to a large degree. Obviously you have to have someone who can fulfill the role effectively but having roles allows pitchers to get comfortable to being used in certain situations. If repetition is key to mechanics then it shouldn't be too far a leap to think customary roles aids mental effectiveness as well. Especially considering relievers can't practice on the side. They don't have the benefit of bullpen sessions like starters do.

While there is some merit to matchups, outside of lefty righty, I'm not sure what constitutes viable matching? Numbers against certain guys is always a small sample. The hot hand is no better. What constitutes a hot hand and how can anyone predict when one starts or ends? Is two bad games in a row a cold streak or does it take two weeks to think so? How long a leash do you give a guy who pitched well for half a season vs someone who had a hot month? Would anyone think it better to pitch a hot Manny Parra than a cold Aroldis Chapman?

 

The hardest part about this is when you have a slew of young guys who you are trying to evaluate. If they start off hot like Fiers and establish some success and confidence, great. If they start off cold, how much of a leash do you give them? Are they just unlucky? Baseball is a wonderful game for this kind of thing.

[monty57]

Players like the "closer" tag because it gets them more money. If Axford was a "relief pitcher" and not a "closer," he would have made around $1MM instead of $5MM in his first year of arby. "Saves" may be hated by stat guys, but they're loved by agents, and I think teams are bullied by the union with threats of grievances if top relievers aren't given the opportunity to rack up saves.

 

When I saw a shaky Axford this spring (with Canada and the Brewers), I hoped (but didn't expect) Melvin to try to trade him to Detroit when they were begging for a "closer." I've seen too many flash in the pan guys come from nowhere, put up a good season or two in the middle of their prime and then implode, to have a lot of faith that Axford would be at the top of his game for too much longer. Of course he wasn't traded, so now Roenicke's kind of stuck between a rock and a hard place... leave the high-priced closer in and look like a fool if he continues to stink, or replace the high priced closer and look like a fool if the next guy stinks. All along getting blamed that your decisions (leaving him in or taking him out) is what's causing the problems.

 

But, as much as people say that closers aren't important and aren't worth the money, if Axford doesn't get it together or if we don't find someone to fill the role, we will not be in the playoffs in 2013. Because the Brewers know this, I'd guess he'll get another handful of chances before he gets "demoted" to mop-up duty for a while. I'd guess that if that happens, we'd go with a matchup-based "closer by committee" for a while, hoping Axford gets his "three great innings" as SoupTown puts it. If Axford still can't "find it" after a few outings, someone else will be named "closer." While we don't have "proven" arms in the 'pen, we do have some good arms in the 'pen, so we should be able to find someone who can stick.

[Warning Track Power]

if rogers could gain some velocity, i'd love to see him get a try once he is back.

Patrick man...You nailed this on the head. Rogers doesn't seem like he will ever be the starter we hoped he would. As a one inning guy though, assuming his velocity comes back, would possibly make for a great internal option. I'm not sure about his secondary pitches and how quality they are but I would definitely explore this option.

[monty57]

More than anything, Rogers has to get his walks down. With the way he looked this spring, and the facts that he has no options remaining and we have a lot of near-MLB-ready starting pitchers, I doubt he'll ever get another chance as a starter with the Brewers.

 

Since he may be destined for the pen, I hope they treat him like a reliever and don't make him the "long man." It would be good to see how he performs when he can go all-out in one inning. If he can stay heatlhy and if he gains some control, he could be looked at as a "high-leverage reliever" in the future. That's a lot of "ifs," but it's probably the best we can hope for.

[MJLiverock]

if rogers could gain some velocity, i'd love to see him get a try once he is back.

Patrick man...You nailed this on the head. Rogers doesn't seem like he will ever be the starter we hoped he would. As a one inning guy though, assuming his velocity comes back, would possibly make for a great internal option. I'm not sure about his secondary pitches and how quality they are but I would definitely explore this option.

 

Isn't getting velocity part of the problem with Axford? Reports were that he was only hitting 91-92 on the gun in his last outing. If he is suffering from dead arm or is injured they can't keep trotting him out. If his velocity is back I'd let him go out again. Homer on opening day, that happens, especially to a LHer with that short picnic area available in right. The 2nd Fowler HR was on a curveball IIRC, maybe Axford didn't trust his FB since he didn't feel the velocity either and started throwing 2ndary pitches as a result. I think the near term decision will come down to if Axford can keep the fastball in the mid to upper 90's or not.

[SoupTown]

Oxy, re the Cardinals closer by committee you mention - it was not by design. It was by accident / injury / ineffectiveness. And they did their best to NOT EMBRACE that. From a write up to before the 2012 season - referring to the 2011 year - I can find...

 

"However, last year's Cardinals team lacked a true closer, and that problem was solved late in the season and in the playoffs. Jason Motte proved he's the man for the job by saving five games in the postseason, all while posting an impressive 2.19 ERA and a microscopic 0.49 WHIP."

 

(http://bleacherreport.com/articles/1090597-2012-mlb-predictions-st-louis-cardinals-season-preview)

 

So you can see it was a problem to be solved. I do not see it as a problem to have 4 or 5 above average guys and any of them can pitch the 9th. But it is great you point out that example. The Cards plugged and played until they found the HOT GUY. And used that guy for a great reward. Good for Tony La (but by sheer accident - not design)

[Ennder]

The Cardinals had a really strong bullpen to choose from that year even if they blew a number of saves. The Brewers bullpen is one of the weaker in the NL so it is going to be a struggle closing games unless Axford or Henderson really get going.

[RobDeer 45]

If ARod gets traded, who's our guy?

[PrinceEatMeat]

It's pretty obvious that Henderson will move to closer since he's currently the setup man.