Question for the statheads on closers?

[danzig6767]

I've always agreed with those that feel paying big money to a closer on a team likely to win say 70-77 games is like putting fancy rims on a car with terrible brakes and numerous engine problems. When it comes to teams to look like they should contend, then i start seeing some rational to pay quite a bit for a closer. It's true they don't pitch nearly as many innings as a starter, but in most games they do pitch, if they do their job you do win the game and many times when they don't, it's a loss instead.

 

So let's say you have a contending team and closer A blows six saves on the season and the team loses four of them. Then lets say closer B was there instead and he blew 11-12 saves and the team ended up losing 7-8-9 of those games. Given how often division/wild card berths are so often decided by 1-3 games, those blown saves easily could be the difference between making or not making the playoffs.

 

I'm not much a reader of all the saber sites out there, but i know i've seen sometimes where win values are given to player and how much money that roughly is worth per win. So how much cash in these formulas would a top notch closer be worth that causes say 3-4 less losses to a team?

 

I also agree with those that say an 8th inning setup guy can be nearly as valuable as the closer because those three outs in the 8th are needed for a closer to get a chance to finish a game, but he gets less cash and glory for it. Saves no doubt are a pretty contrived stat.

 

With that stuff said, at this time in baseball, all teams will use a closer. A better closer vs an inferior closer will win a team anywhere from 1-5ish extra games. Even though they pitch limited innings compared to starter or an everyday player, to me it seems their impact on a final record for a team can be pretty high individually even with their limited time on the field.

 

Is a closer on a contending team in tight playoff races worth 10 million if they aren't turning many would be wins into losses? Say the 10 million dollar guy prevents three or four games from being losses compared to lesser closer making 5.5 million, that would seem worth the money to me. Agree or disagree?

 

I ask because i find myself sometimes wanting to Brewers to just give Cordero 4yr/40 million if he'd take it and other times thinking, man that's to much for a closer that often only has to get three outs with a 2-3 run lead. Then i think of us getting someone else to close that struggles somewhat, costing the Brewers 2-3-4 extra games and us missing the playoffs by a game or two.

 

My apologies for rambling and this post is a bit disjointed, but i'm struggling a bit to figure out what i'd like Melvin to do if Cordero would stay, but we had to offer 4yr/40 million. I generally feel the closer role is overrated and it's a dumb stat, but i'd be very leery of entering next year with a possibly shaky closer situation given i suspect the Brewers will be in a tight race again this year.

[endaround]

I think the problem here is you are giving too many blown saves to pitcher B. BP gives a relievers wins over replacement, basically looking at the situation a reliever comes into and its relative stress. Putz unsurpsingly lead the league at 7.15, Cordero was 23 at 3.22. Turnbow was number 40 at 2.75.

 

Link:http://baseballprospectus.com/statistics/sortable/index.php?cid=204021

[Fatter than Joey]

I generally feel the closer role is overrated and it's a dumb stat, but i'd be very leery of entering next year with a possibly shaky closer situation given i suspect the Brewers will be in a tight race again this year.

 

I agree that the closer rule is overrated.

 

As far as the save stat -- I think that there are dumb stats, like RBI -- but the save stat managed to change the way baseball is played, that makes it

worse than dumb in my book.

 

As far as Cordero -- I sort of see what you are wrestling with. I think the Brewers have to spend money on their bullpen if they want to keep

on pace with the Cubs -- I don't think we can find our relievers off the scrap-heap any more. Signing guys like Choate for AAA depth is one

thing -- but we can't expect to find a closer that way like we did with Turnbow.

 

I like what the Cubs with their BP, --- that is, when their starter gets in a jam they bring in Marmol, let him put out the fire, and let

a clown like Dempster pitch the 9th with no one base. Marmol was the Cubs bullpen "anchor", Dempster may have been the closer

but Marmol was the pitcher that converted starter jams into wins.

 

Now -- If we are letting Cordero walk, and find a younger/cheaper option -- I understand/support that. If DM plans to mine the scrapheap (Choate)

or turns the BP anchor position over to Turnbow -- I would be pretty nervous.

 

Of course I think a GM has to consider the manager as well -- Some mangers can take BP lemons and make lemonade, other managers

will just wreck the lemons.

[logan82]

I like what the Cubs with their BP, --- that is, when their starter gets in a jam they bring in Marmol, let him put out the fire, and let

a clown like Dempster pitch the 9th with no one base. Marmol was the Cubs bullpen "anchor", Dempster may have been the closer

but Marmol was the pitcher that converted starter jams into wins.

We had that guy in Villanueva for the first half of the year. This is why I have no problem with Turnbow as the closer as long as we have somebody better to take the stopper role.

[sbrylski]

FTJ, you described the Bullpen Ace theory. I like it too.

 

Use our best reliever whenever we need him most, be it in the 6th inning or the 8th. Then, with the bases empty to start the ninth bring in Turnbow, who will get the job done most of the time, or completely bomb.

[logan82]

I am waiting to see if the Cubs stick with that next year. I think it would be the smart thing to do, but when a pitcher is your best reliever it is tough to keep him in any role other than Closer unless the guy is young or you don't designate a closer.

[Fatter than Joey]

FTJ, you described the Bullpen Ace theory. I like it too.

 

It's the "FTJ Bullpen Theory" -- I predate baseball/saber theory http://forum.brewerfan.net/images/smilies/smile.gif

 

The other thing that is pissing me off is assigning pitchers to innings with no regard to matchups, as if they are running a baton-type relay race.

Saying "Matt Wise is our 7th inning pitcher" makes no sense to me.

[logan82]

FTJ, you described the Bullpen Ace theory. I like it too.

 

It's the "FTJ Bullpen Theory" -- I predate baseball/saber theory http://forum.brewerfan.net/images/smilies/smile.gif

 

The other thing that is pissing me off is assigning pitchers to innings with no regard to matchups, as if they are running a baton-type relay race.

Saying "Matt Wise is our 7th inning pitcher" makes no sense to me.

Statistically it doesn't make sense. Relief pitchers, many of them, seem to like having a certain inning or situation to pitch in. They like to know what their role is. The best for the team would be to just tell all of them to be ready in the 5th or later. Unless you are that long relief guy, then you have to be ready in the 1st and can sit after the starter gets through the 5th.

[mothershipconnection]

So let's say you have a contending team and closer A blows six saves on the season and the team loses four of them. Then lets say closer B was there instead and he blew 11-12 saves and the team ended up losing 7-8-9 of those games. Given how often division/wild card berths are so often decided by 1-3 games, those blown saves easily could be the difference between making or not making the playoffs.

 

Saves and blown saves need to be taken with a grain of salt, though, because all saves are not created equally. If player A protected bigger leads on average, closer B may have actually not been an inferior pitcher, or at least not that much worse. Turnbow, with all 3-run leads would look better than Cordero with 1-run leads. As a quick and dirty illustration, Cordero gave up at least one run in 11/66 appearances this year while Turnbow gave up 3+ runs in "only" 7/77 appearances.

[Fatter than Joey]

Relief pitchers, many of them, seem to like having a certain inning or situation to pitch in. They like to know what their role is.

 

I won't argue this, but I do think a lot of managers like having a bullpen template to work from as well.

[Big Reed]

I look at closers and losing teams from a different viewpoint. I think a good closer can turn a losing team into a winner. having a great closer allows the starters to pitch differently and allows the coach to coach differently. A starter can go all out for those first 6-7 innings knowing he doesn't have to hold back and also pitch the 9th to ensure he gets a win. So many baseball games are decided by 1-2 runs, and the teams that make the play-offs are the ones that win those close games.

 

Rather than looking at why the brewers failed down the stretch last year, we should look at why the dbacks, rockies, and cubs all succeeded in September. Dempster had 28 saves and only blew 3 chances. valverde had 47 saves. and Colorado had Corpus and Fuentes who were both red hot. Fuentes did not allow an inherited runner to score the entire year.

 

rather than becoming a winner and then adding a closer to the mix, I think guys like Valverde and Corpus were the real reason their teams became winners. When I look at the Brewers of several years ago, the difference between being a winning team and a loser was because of the blown saves. if the brewers had invested in a proven closer several years ago, they would have become a winner sooner.

 

I realize I have no stats to back me up - just proven examples. Tom Seaver didn't win 50 games in 1969. But he did make the people around him better. Rollie Fingers didn't get 7 saves in one world series. But he is the reason Oakland won and the Brewers lost. if fingers was pitching for the brewers in the 1982 world series, the series would have gone 5 games maximum. And Fingers was one of the prime reasons the brewers made it to the series. Pitching is what beat the Angels in the play-offs, not hitting.

 

something that doesn't show up in stats. We all know Rivera is a great closer. However, Chamberlain would not be half as good if he didn't know Rivera was in the bullpen ready to bail him out if he got into a jam. knowing he had Rivera, Torre could use Chamberlain to maximize his output. if Torre didn't have a closer he had confidence in, he might have used his starters and middle relievers a lot differently.

 

the same applies to the brewers. without Cordero, perhaps Bush and Suppan and the other starters would have been asked to pitch 7-9 innings instead of 6-7 innings. the effect could have been they all burned out by September.

 

a quality closer is worth more than a quality left fielder. Cordero is worth his $10 million.

[DrWood]

marmol was used like he was because management didn't think he had the experience/makeup to be a closer yet. It wasn't because he was used in the most-critical positions. If the brewers had a guy like him in the pen, it would place a lower premium on tieing up a closer with a big contract.

[logan82]

Big Reed,

The teams you mention all had more than just closers. They also had 2-3 guys that could be counted on to get to the closer. That is where we differed from them.

 

When Fingers was the closer he was called a "fireman". He came in as early as the 5th inning and was used for more than one inning in many cases. He was used more like Marmol than Dempster, just to use a Cubs comparison.

 

I don't think the Brewers would have had our starters pitch any diffferently if we did not have Cordero. I don't think our season would have been much different. Maybe 1 or 2 wins due to a few more blown saves. Many of the games we lost were in the 6th-8th before our closer even came out.

[mothershipconnection]

if fingers was pitching for the brewers in the 1982 world series, the series would have gone 5 games maximum.

 

Is that that new-fangled "fuzzy math" yer usin?

 

We obviously win game 1.

 

In game 2 - it was tied until the bottom of the 8th, when McClure gave up the winning run. Would Fingers have been in in the 8th AND shut them, down, AND shut them down again in the 9th AND would we have scored the winning run in extra innings?

 

We still lose game 3

 

We still win game 4

 

We still win game 5, but maybe by an extra 2 runs.

 

We still lose game 6 (that one was over after 5 innings)

 

We still lose game 7, since the best case is that Fingers could have prevented the two runs in the 8th, but we still lose by 1 or he. I guess maybe he could have come in in th 6th and shut them down and the game remains tied, but that's still not a win, and we don't have Rollie late in the game.

 

Game 2 was our only loss that was decided late by the pen. Fingers doesn't win that series, and certainly not in 5 games. Was his moustache going to score 5 runs in game 3 and 2 in game 2?

[Fear The Chorizo]

All I know is if a guy with Joe Borowski's stuff can lead the AL in saves, the closer position is way, way overrated and overpaid.

 

Relief pitching is so volatile from one year to the next that it's bad business for a small market team to shell out a large % of its payroll to its bullpen. The key for small market teams to produce good bullpens is its farm system - young, inexpensive power arms who either break into the bigs in the pen prior to starting, or are groomed in the minors to be a reliever. Right now that's the glaring weakness that Milwaukee's organization has - they have a dearth of bullpen arm talent in their minor leagues. Waiver wire, Rule 5, and scrap heap pickups can only go so far.

[Big Reed]

mothership I majored in math. Wit h fingers, we would have won game 2. We would have won in 5 games. it's quite simple, We would have never lost in either game 6 or in game 7 because the series would have been OVER! so what we did in those two games would have been irrelevant.

[TooLiveBrew]

Would Fingers have been in in the 8th AND shut them, down, AND shut them down again in the 9th AND would we have scored the winning run in extra innings

 

Apparently with Fingers pitching, our offense would have gotten just the boost it needed! I agree Rollie could've helped extend the game. But to claim that g. 2 was a guarantee after he (presumably) got us through the 8th is slightly reckless.