K-Rod claimed on revocable waivers, pulled back by Brewers

[reillymcshane]

Closers are incredibly overrated. Sure there's some pressure when you have a 1 run lead but any reliever who can't consistently get through an inning without giving up a 2 or 3 run lead doesn't deserve to be in the majors anyway.

But roles make things so easy.

 

7th inning - bring in the '7th inning guy'

8th inning - bring in the '8th inning guy' (Kameron Loe, come on down!)

9th inning - bring in the 'closer'

 

In all honesty, I've read some players love the 'role' - whether 7th or 8th inning or whatever. Others could care less. In this day and age, however, it makes for lazy managing.

 

I can appreciate that some guys do well in specific spots, but in the end, it's about the team. If the 3-4-5 guys are coming up in the 8th inning, shouldn't you bring out your best reliever in this spot? I think teams need to instill this kind of flexibility in relievers - preach to them that every inning is important, and they could be pitching at any spot. I'm not saying don't have 'roles' - but understand that those roles are more guidelines - not a hard and fast way to run a bullpen.

[Thurston Fluff]

If pitchers were robots roles wouldn't matter. I tend to think people to do better when they know their role and what is expected of them. If you simply use players based on match ups players don't get a chance to get a routine they can get comfortable in. If someone is watching the game develop they pretty much know if they are going to get in the game or not. Sure things can change in a hurry but they usually don't. Humans being human, they tend to mentally prepare themselves for what the day most likely will bring them.

While I understand some players don't need comfortable routines to pitch well some, I would argue more, players do. What's more, I don't think nearly as many, if any, players do better with chaotic use. So the chances of getting the most out of the most players may very well lay in giving them predictable roles. Even if the particular match up that day says it shouldn't.

[pacopete4]

If pitchers were robots roles wouldn't matter. I tend to think people to do better when they know their role and what is expected of them. If you simply use players based on match ups players don't get a chance to get a routine they can get comfortable in.

 

 

Why couldn't a manager tell three of his bullpen guys to be ready for the 8th and 9th inning and where a team is in the lineup will determine who he uses and when? That is letting them know their role. Also, wouldn't a pitcher be more comfortable knowing he's going in against hitters he has a track record of getting out? To me, that would be a lot more comfortable pitching than some guy batting .400 off me with 15 home runs but I'm in because I'm the closer or 8th inning man.

[Thurston Fluff]

If pitchers were robots roles wouldn't matter. I tend to think people to do better when they know their role and what is expected of them. If you simply use players based on match ups players don't get a chance to get a routine they can get comfortable in.

 

 

Why couldn't a manager tell three of his bullpen guys to be ready for the 8th and 9th inning and where a team is in the lineup will determine who he uses and when? That is letting them know their role. Also, wouldn't a pitcher be more comfortable knowing he's going in against hitters he has a track record of getting out? To me, that would be a lot more comfortable pitching than some guy batting .400 off me with 15 home runs but I'm in because I'm the closer or 8th inning man.

 

If you are in the 6th inning you know the 8th inning is coming up. You don't know who will be hitting then until it happens. What happens when each pitcher did the best against one of the three batters up in the inning?

Then there is the major issue of managing the game based on small sample sizes. To run an entire pen based on how a few pitchers did against a few batters seems to leave a lot of uncertainty for everyone. What about the fact that some players have never faced some pitchers? I think that would be a lot of players a lot of the time. What about young players? They don't have any record to go on at all.

That isn't even touching the concept of performance based incentives. That usually comes in the form of promotions. In the pen going from middle relief to late innings or closing is being promoted. Again it's human nature to work for such things as recognition and potential career improving actions by your boss.

Personally I think the better pitchers should be put in the most prestigious roles no matter how they did in a handful of appearances against said batter. I also believe most pitchers tend to do better when they know they are going to be called on for a set role. I do not believe a set role can realistically be based on how someone did in his previous 15 appearances against one batter. Thus the only realistic way of providing a stable predictable bullpen is to give players roles. Obviously performance dictates how long those set roles are but that is not the same as not having roles.

For all the criticism Ned Yost got for his bullpen management and set roles he has managed to have one of the very best relief corps in the game the past two years. While the majority of the credit goes to the pitchers, how he handles them has some effect on how well they are doing.

[danzig6767]

With all the data and statistics we have now, managers should really be using that to his advantage when looking at match ups. It's no secret that some hitters do well against a pitcher while others do not. Use the data to help you decide when and where to use your relievers. When it comes to closers, maybe that falls true as well but if you have 2-3 guys you're running out there in the 9th, you better be ready for those to always question you when it doesn't fall your way. If a closer blows up, its on the closer. If you're closer "x" blows up and you didn't use closer "y", now you have people going after you.

Even very sabermetric inclined GM's like Epstein and Beane tried bullpen by committee approaches in the past as you bring up and many others for awhile have, with no set defined closer/roles overall in the pen and when things blew up in their faces, both gave up on it and either signed closers and/or found closers inside their organization, and still do so today.

 

Maybe someday another GM will try that bullpen by committee approach again vs mostly set roles for late in close games, but if even very sabermetric inclined GM's pass on that plan for their bullpen, it could be awhile before we see it tried again.

[Baldkin]

The only reasons the closer role exists are the save statistic, the money associated with it and as an easy excuse to take the blame off of the manager actually having to answer a question on baseball strategy.

[logan82]

They can easily let bullpen guys get in a routine. Be ready anytime after the 5th inning.

[FVBrewerFan]

I really believe pitchers would get used to not having defined roles if you started that way from the beginning of Spring Training. Some may take longer than others to get used to it, granted. Habits, routine, etc. generally take at least 30 days to sink in.

 

Manager/ pitching coach could walk through the strategy before each series and each game, letting them know what the plan will be. That way everyone is on the same page, and the "main closer" would know, for example, that going into the series he may not pitch the 9th if they are at a certain point in the line-up.

 

This is all tough to do if you already have an established closer. Brewers will be in a good position to go this route once KRod is gone. Nobody will be "used to" the closer role then, so it should make it easier.

[jerichoholicninja]

The only reasons the closer role exists are the save statistic, the money associated with it and as an easy excuse to take the blame off of the manager actually having to answer a question on baseball strategy.

 

It's true that relievers get paid for saves which really confuses me why small market teams, especially losing ones, give saves to one guy. If Krod wasn't on the team would it not make more sense for Doug or Mark to tell Craig not to have a set closer and rotate through Jeffress, Smith, Knebel, etc. pitching the 9th to keep their saves and therefore arbitration years cheaper?

[JohnBriggs12]

Closers are overrated until you don't have one. Bullpen failure, especially late, sabotaged the entire 2012 Brewer season. Losing games late affects the entire team. Many major league pitchers have said from experience that the last 3 outs of a game are the toughest ones to get. I'll take their word for it. It also takes a certain type of individual to put a 9th inning failure behind him and not be affected by it the next day.

[Thurston Fluff]

They can easily let bullpen guys get in a routine. Be ready anytime after the 5th inning.

 

Obviously not since it has been tried several times and failed as Danzig6767 pointed out. At some point what actually happens has to count for more than what someone thinks should happen.

[Baldkin]

They can easily let bullpen guys get in a routine. Be ready anytime after the 5th inning.

 

Obviously not since it has been tried several times and failed as Danzig6767 pointed out. At some point what actually happens has to count for more than what someone thinks should happen.

 

It doesn't work as often as it doesn't work with a proven guy.

 

Trevor Hoffman?

 

Anecdotal evidence of that one time it didn't work doesn't mean it never worked. Seemed to work fine for the 2008 Brewers. Things haven't changed in the last 50 years. Teams still win 95% of the games they lead going into the 9th inning.

 

http://joeposnanski.com/the-closer-you-get/

 

Winning percentages when team leads by three runs going into the ninth inning:

 

1960s: .974

1970s: .977

1980s: .975

1990s: .963

2000s: .976

 

You will note that the lowest win percentage is in the 1990s. This is a big theme. Yes, teams obviously were using closers in the 1990s, but teams were also scoring runs at a historic rate.

 

Winning percentages when team leads by two runs going into the ninth inning:

 

1960s: .930

1970s: .925

1980s: .941

1990s: .936

2000s: .931

 

The numbers are kind of all over the place — but as you can see the winning percentage in the 2000s, with closers and setup-men and all that, almost precisely matches the winning percentage of the 1960s, when runs were hard to come by and starters often finished what they started. I’m not sure what you can learn from this. Now, to the big one.

 

WInning percentages when team leads by one run going into the ninth inning:

 

1960s: .844

1970s: .850

1980s: .852

1990s: .846

2000s: .848

[monty57]

It's true that relievers get paid for saves which really confuses me why small market teams, especially losing ones, give saves to one guy.

 

That can be a good trade strategy for a losing team. Simply put an decent arm into the closer role, and when he stockpiles some saves, his trade value is significantly higher. You should probably do this with a guy who is already in his arby years, nearing the end of team control, as he isn't a long-term guy, would have little trade value without the saves, and you don't have to worry about artificially increasing your future arbitration costs like you would if you put a pre-arby guy into this role.

[danzig6767]

I don't have any big issue with closer and 7th/8th inning fairly set roles. The only issue i have is some teams overpaying for the 9th inning guy when getting three outs in the 8th inning of a 1-2 run lead are just as important.

 

Take say Wade Davis in KC. He's been as or more important to success of the Royals dominant pen as Holland has been, but Holland has gotten the more glamorous and financially important save stats because he pitches the 9th inning of close games instead of the 8th.

 

If i was GM of a legit contender team with very large revenue streams, i wouldn't mind much paying say 7-10 million on a non-long term deal for a really good veteran closer if we didn't have an internal younger and cheaper option. If i'm GM though of a lower revenue team, i'd have to have a really good team with no younger and cheaper option before i'd pay a closer over say 5 million per. If i'm GM of a rebuilding team, no chance at all would i pay anyone veteran closer money.

[Thurston Fluff]

They can easily let bullpen guys get in a routine. Be ready anytime after the 5th inning.

 

Obviously not since it has been tried several times and failed as Danzig6767 pointed out. At some point what actually happens has to count for more than what someone thinks should happen.

 

It doesn't work as often as it doesn't work with a proven guy.

 

Trevor Hoffman?

 

Anecdotal evidence of that one time it didn't work doesn't mean it never worked. Seemed to work fine for the 2008 Brewers. Things haven't changed in the last 50 years. Teams still win 95% of the games they lead going into the 9th inning.

 

http://joeposnanski.com/the-closer-you-get/

 

Winning percentages when team leads by three runs going into the ninth inning:

 

1960s: .974

1970s: .977

1980s: .975

1990s: .963

2000s: .976

 

You will note that the lowest win percentage is in the 1990s. This is a big theme. Yes, teams obviously were using closers in the 1990s, but teams were also scoring runs at a historic rate.

 

Winning percentages when team leads by two runs going into the ninth inning:

 

1960s: .930

1970s: .925

1980s: .941

1990s: .936

2000s: .931

 

The numbers are kind of all over the place — but as you can see the winning percentage in the 2000s, with closers and setup-men and all that, almost precisely matches the winning percentage of the 1960s, when runs were hard to come by and starters often finished what they started. I’m not sure what you can learn from this. Now, to the big one.

 

WInning percentages when team leads by one run going into the ninth inning:

 

1960s: .844

1970s: .850

1980s: .852

1990s: .846

2000s: .848

 

I don't get what your point is. It doesn't give any breakdown to show if there was a difference in the win % of a team that used set roles vs those who went by committee. How each pen was used is kind of a major factor to determining if one way is better than another. Sure some eras had lower scoring than others but again what does that prove about roles in the pen vs using relievers in every role depending on the situation?

If the point is that teams won as many games without set roles in the 60's I think you are mistaken. The 60's was when teams started to have relief specialists. http://1960sbaseball.com/1960sBaseball_Top10_relief.html

 

I should also point out the idea of using any reliever in any inning based on the situation is far more than just the ninth inning. Since I think you were addressing the specific argument originally brought up by Danzig6767 and supported by me I think it is fair to address as you did. Although using the 08 Brewers closer by committee as an example of how well it works is pretty hard to figure out. That season the pen blew 20 of 65 save chances. Of that number Torres, who ended up getting most of them after he was the only one getting the opportunity, saved 28 out of 35. That leaves the rest of the closer by committee members with a whopping 17 out of 30 saves. If you are using a season when the team blew 20 saves, and only one had anything close to a respectable save rate, as an example of success for closer by committee I think you may find it hard to convince anyone it is the way to go.

As far as your Trevor Hoffman comment goes I have no idea what you are getting at. If it was how bad he flopped his final season even though he had a set role what does that prove? I don't think anyone said just having a set role means everyone will succeed. It just means it gives them the best chance to succeed. The pen itself didn't get better that season by going to closer by committee. They got better because Axford took over that role and did well in it.

[danzig6767]

I should also point out the idea of using any reliever in any inning based on the situation is far more than just the ninth inning. Since I think you were addressing the specific argument originally brought up by Danzig6767 and supported by me I think it is fair to address as you did. Although using the 08 Brewers closer by committee as an example of how well it works is pretty hard to figure out. That season the pen blew 20 of 65 save chances. Of that number Torres, who ended up getting most of them after he was the only one getting the opportunity, saved 28 out of 35. That leaves the rest of the closer by committee members with a whopping 17 out of 30 saves. If you are using a season when the team blew 20 saves, and only one had anything close to a respectable save rate, as an example of success for closer by committee I think you may find it hard to convince anyone it is the way to go.

While i have no problem at all anymore with mostly set roles for at least the 8th/9th innings of close games, i do think it's a waste of money for non-legt contenders to spend say 5 million or more on a closer when a few extra blown saves won't have any impact on potentially missing a playoff berth by a single game or two, especially for lower revenue mediocre to bad teams as the Brewers look to be the next 2-3 years.

 

In the case of those type of teams, i think they'd be far better served trying out young and cheap options in that closer role to see if one eventually sticks. So if one fails in that role, simply try another younger option. Sure, it can be really demoralizing for any team, even mediocre to bad ones if their unproven closer blows a number of close games, but if your team very likely had little to no chance at seriously contending for a playoff berth anyways, gotta just deal with that frustration and hope the next guy tried out is competent.

 

Big difference instead between a high revenue team with a quality roster and in the playoff hunt, but their bullpen/late game pitcher by committee experiment isn't working out well and in the process, costing that team a few more precious losses when a playoff berth could end up being decided by a single game or two.

 

So come the start of next season, there really is no reason that K-Rod should be closing games and not only because of his paycheck. A younger guy should be in that role trying to determine if he can handle it on the cheap for the next few years at least.

[Baldkin]

My point is plainly this:

 

You win because you have the lead in the 9th. Whoever pitches gets it done.

 

Also, that 2008 stat is completely incorrect, as it simply takes saves and blown saves (and not holds) into account. It's not using simply 9th inning statistics -- David Riske blew 5 saves that season, for example.

 

You should use your best reliever in the most important situation in a game. The idea that a pitcher who's made it to MLB doesn't have the mental fortitude or ability to accept a role that will help the team win more games baffles me.

 

You need to have a manager who can lay out those expectations and can pass them off to the team.

[502 to Right]

My point is plainly this:

 

You should use your best reliever in the most important situation in a game. The idea that a pitcher who's made it to MLB doesn't have the mental fortitude or ability to accept a role that will help the team win more games baffles me.

 

You need to have a manager who can lay out those expectations and can pass them off to the team.

 

While I love the idea of a Jamesian Relief Ace who comes in at the most crucial point of the game, it's not as easy to implement as it is to write. It takes time to warm up a pitcher, and often a manager wouldn't have his relief ace ready to go when the magic moment were to arrive. Plus, a manager can't be constantly dry humping his relief pitchers by getting them up and down throughout the game and not using them.

[Baldkin]

My point is plainly this:

 

You should use your best reliever in the most important situation in a game. The idea that a pitcher who's made it to MLB doesn't have the mental fortitude or ability to accept a role that will help the team win more games baffles me.

 

You need to have a manager who can lay out those expectations and can pass them off to the team.

 

While I love the idea of a Jamesian Relief Ace who comes in at the most crucial point of the game, it's not as easy to implement as it is to write. It takes time to warm up a pitcher, and often a manager wouldn't have his relief ace ready to go when the magic moment were to arrive. Plus, a manager can't be constantly dry humping his relief pitchers by getting them up and down throughout the game and not using them.

 

It takes a relief pitcher 3 minutes to get ready. Or do you not remember the Tony LaRussa school of getting a guy up? Throw over to first. Throw over to first. Coach visit to the mound. Throw over to first. Bring in reliever.

[gregmag]

Closers are made, not born. We have guys with closer potential who could be here a while, and that causes a cascade of other guys with potential to move up into more prominent roles. We have a whole bunch of young, controllable bullpen arms on the roster. I think we'd be foolish not to use the rebuild to figure out how to maximize their contributions.

 

I'm glad they didn't just give Rodriguez away, but I'm all for getting what they can for him in the off season.

[monty57]

Closers are made, not born. We have guys with closer potential who could be here a while, and that causes a cascade of other guys with potential to move up into more prominent roles. We have a whole bunch of young, controllable bullpen arms on the roster. I think we'd be foolish not to use the rebuild to figure out how to maximize their contributions.

 

I'm glad they didn't just give Rodriguez away, but I'm all for getting what they can for him in the off season.

 

Agree completely. Hopefully, we could get a decent return for Rodriguez. Then, we put Jeffress in the closer role. He'll cost a little more when he hits arby, but he would be extremely valuable should we decide to trade him in a couple of years, with two years of relatively inexpensive team control left and two years logged as a closer. Really, any of Jeffress, Thornberg and Smith would fit as guys who are nearing arby and capable of filling the role. We have guys with more team control ready to step in once the aforementioned trio is gone, so we should be able to fill the closer role (and most of the rest of the 'pen) pretty cheaply with in-house options for a long time.

 

There's really no reason to hold on to K-Rod unless (A) we honestly think we're a playoff team in 2016, or (B) no one would trade for him.

 

I don't think either of those scenarios are very likely, so it makes a ton of sense to trade K-Rod this offseason, coming off a very good season.

[danzig6767]

You should use your best reliever in the most important situation in a game. The idea that a pitcher who's made it to MLB doesn't have the mental fortitude or ability to accept a role that will help the team win more games baffles me.

 

You need to have a manager who can lay out those expectations and can pass them off to the team.

One thing you don't seem to be considering is that from say the 6th inning on of a close game, what can seem to be the most important situation in a game could change multiple times for a variety of reasons.

 

Take say the Royals who have Wade Davis and Holland who almost always just pitch the 8th/9th inning of close games. So hypothetically a Royals starter gets in trouble in the 6th inning of a close game and you bring in Davis because it seems like it will be in the most important situation in a game. Then the 7th or 8th inning roles around and an inferior reliever to Davis gets in trouble, but Davis is no longer available and Trout or Cabrera is due up. Now that's in the most important situation in a game compared to what seemed in the most important situation in a game an inning or two ago.

 

Or what if you got Davis heated up in that 6th inning, but while doing so, the starter got out of trouble. Do you get him back up the next inning if trouble arises?

 

FWIW, i also get frustrated at times by how so many managers today behave like robots when it comes to their bullpen, regardless of the current situation at hand. That said, while i do believe more managers shouldn't be so rigid in use of relievers, i do think your idea for usage comes with more pitfalls than you seem to be considering by saying it simple, just use any reliever whenever and the results will be obviously better.

[gregmag]

danzig, you make a good point. But sometimes, at least, isn't that something a manager should be able to manage? It's like any other percentage play. You're tied in the 6th inning, other team has the bases loaded, one out, your closer has the platoon advantage over the next two hitters, and your closer is a lot better pitcher than your next-best option . . . sure, there could be a situation later in the game that makes you regret using him then, but probably not. In contrast, if you save he closer for the 9th, you can always say you "didn't waste him," but you aren't really taking stock of the cost, especially for games you lost in the middle innings.

 

This all matters less if you're a team like the Royals, with three closer-quality guys. Actually it doesn't matter much with the Brewers. I don't mind that we save Rodriguez for the 9th, because I doubt he's much if at all better than Smith and Jeffress anyway. (No disrespect to him; they're all very good.) It was more frustrating when we'd run Kameron Loe or somebody out there to lose games in the 8th, but when your top three relievers are close in quality, I doubt you lose much flexibility by giving them set roles.

[monty57]

I always think of Carlos Marmol when people bring up using the best reliever in tight situations. He was dominant early in his career, and became the guy the manager used in tight situations. The problem became that every game (even blowouts) had tight situations, so the manager couldn't seem to give him any rest. Even once he became the closer, he was still brought in for non-save situations. From 2008 to 2011, he had 82, 79, 77, and 75 appearances, sometimes for multiple innings. Not surprisingly, he became far less effective, and I'm surprised his arm didn't fall off.

 

Managers should be smart enough not to do this, but when they are in a situation of "win or get fired," as all managers are, it is tough not to abuse someone like this. Maybe limiting your best guy to save situations (and next best guy in 8th inning, etc) isn't the ideal way to use him, but at least it helps monitor things to keep him fresh.

 

Plus, as danzig noted, how does anyone know the best situation. Using him in a bases loaded situation in the 6th one day means he isn't available later that game, and may mean he isn't available in a one-run 9th inning the next day. There probably isn't a perfect way to manage a bullpen, but most times managers have tried some type of committee approach it hasn't worked, so I'm fine allowing one guy to get some accolades for being called the closer.

 

edit: to the K. Loe reference, that was just poor management altogether. He obviously should have only been used against RH batters, preferably coming in with runners on, as he got righties to ground out regularly. He never should have been used against lefties, so he never should have been given an "8th inning guy" role, where he came in no matter who was due up to bat.