Options
Who said a closer is a BS pos.?
WinPitcher
Posts: 27,726 ✭✭✭
in Sports Talk
The Mets lost again because they have no one to close out the game!
3 run homers in the bottom of the ninth will do that.
Yeah closers are BS, and the save they get are BS too.
Steve
3 run homers in the bottom of the ninth will do that.
Yeah closers are BS, and the save they get are BS too.
Steve
Good for you.
0
Comments
Why pull your starter when you're winning and he's pitching so well? Once you've pulled him and the first reliever gets in trouble, why pull Smith - the second reliever - when you're still winning and he's pitching so well?
Leave either one of them in the game and the Mets almost surely win. This propensity to pull pitchers willy-nilly even when your team is winning is idiotic. And it traces to the invention of the "closer", which is a BS position.
Sutter had 41 games where he pitched Multiple innings. and 36 games where he entered with Men on base.
K-Fraud has ZERO multiple inning games and 8 games he entered with men on base. Pathetic. case closed.
'
What K-Rod has done this year is amazing. Since this is his FA year it is even more genius by the Angels to do this.
<< <i>You cannot compare the closers of today with the closers of yesteryear. >>
Yes I can. They're all overrated and they all play a BS position.
<< <i>
Leave either one of them in the game and the Mets almost surely win. This propensity to pull pitchers willy-nilly even when your team is winning is idiotic. And it traces to the invention of the "closer", which is a BS position. >>
Why didn't the Mets hire you after they fired Randolph?
Why pull your starter when you're winning and he's pitching so well?
Well pitch count for one, guys are making millions and teams want to protect those arms.
Something you obviously have not thought about.
Steve
<< <i>They're all overrated and they all play a BS position. >>
Maybe, but it won't go away. It'll never go away unless you kill the multimillion dollar contracts. Too many ball clubs are worried about hurting their investment by making their starters pitch too many innings.
WTB: 2001 Leaf Rookies & Stars Longevity: Ryan Jensen #/25
But beyond the isolated example of Giants and Lincecum, I think baseball as a sport (at least pitching wise) is moving further and further away from reliance on the starter. To be sure, baseball is as specialized now as it has ever been. Now we have starters, middle relievers, setup men and closers.
Many years ago when I was young and crazy (now I'm just old and still crazy), I said to a friend, why don't we just get rid of the whole idea of a rotation? A baseball team would just have 13-14 "quality" pitchers and each one would pitch literally an inning or two each game. Yeah, I know it sounds stupid.
/s/ JackWESQ
I'm lovin' it.
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
<< <i>Well pitch count for one, guys are making millions and teams want to protect those arms.
Something you obviously have not thought about. >>
The invention of "pitch count" happened at exactly the same time, and in order to justify, the "closer". Check out the all-time leaders in innings pitched some time; for almost a hundred years pitchers pitched 250, 300, 350 innings a year for year after year, and the length of their careers was as long or longer as the 200-inning pitchers of today. Lefties faced right-handed hitters to start the eigth, ninth and tenth innings, and vice versa. Now we have pitching staffs loaded with inferior pitchers pitching hundreds of innings a year that, if the manager thought with his brain instead of his mythical devotion to the closer, would instead be going to the best two or three pitchers on the team. If your closer is one of your best two or three pitchers, as on the Yankees, then fine, bring him in whenever you want. But if you're the Mets, and you complain because you don't have a good closer, then what on Earth would make you pull a good starter? What exactly are the Mets saving Perez for? Are they making sure his arm isn't sore five years from now when he's pitching for some other team? Sorry, a team fighting for a playoff spot has absolutely no excuse for pulling not one, but two pitchers who are throwing that well in the last two innings of a game. It was stupid, and they lost because of it.
And what was Smith's pitch count? 9? Faces two batters, strikes them both out and then gets benched with a two run lead. That was not stupid; that was brain-dead.
<< <i>for almost a hundred years pitchers pitched 250, 300, 350 innings a year for year after year, and the length of their careers was as long or longer as the 200-inning pitchers of today >>
And we have almost one hundred years of pitchers pitching huge numbers of innings early in their career and then falling apart real quick. From the 70s and 80: Tanana, Blue, Valenzuela, Saberhagen, Nolan, Lary Sorensen, Larry Dierker. Would any of these examples have been able to do much more if treated like modern pitchers? Impossible to know, but just because Ryan, Sutton and Seaver could manage huge amounts of innings does not mean everyone could. Pitching at the Major League level causes arm trauma
The big issue is that number of teams have has increased from 16 to 30 and pitching staffs have increased from nine to 12. That is a lot more roster spots to try and fill and a lot of them aren't going to be very good. Which is all the more reason to use relievers for more than one inning as much as you can and use the best relievers in the most important situations -- not simply save situations
Not enough quality to go around, teams are lucky to have 2 or 3 such guys.
Steve
So all 30 managers are wrong?
Steve
Ramping up a player in his career to protect them is one thing (IE not letting them throw tons more innings one year to the next) but once a player has established he can throw x amount of innings I don't think pitch counts are protective anymore. Does Jamie Moyer need a pitch count or Tim Wakefield?
It is proven beyond any doubt that once a guy gets to 100 pitches his game changes.
Add in the fact that around this time the offense has now seen him 3 times.
Good teams have a lights out guy for the 8th and 9th innings.
How anyone can not see this is beyond me, sorta like how can anyone not see that RBI's
are not important.
Steve
<< <i>So all 30 managers are wrong? >>
I think a great many of the 30 managers KNOW that what they are doing is wrong, but to avoid being second-guessed by all the fans and sportswriters, they follow the safe path - the one everyone else follows. Any manager who is not trying to maximize the innings pitched by his best pitchers is wrong.
Of course, after 100 pitches a pitcher's arm isn't as "fresh" as it was to start the game. But that's not the point; the point is that very often, that starter's arm is still better than some random bullpen pitcher's. After 100 pitches watch your starter closer for signs of trouble, but if there isn't any then leave him in if there is no Mariano Rivera to turn to. Pulling him and then complaining for the 100th time that your bullpen is weak is insanity.
And I'm still wondering what any of this has to do with pulling a reliever after nine pitches and two K's.
WTB: 2001 Leaf Rookies & Stars Longevity: Ryan Jensen #/25
YEAR...NAME....AB.....HR......RBI......AVG.......OB.....SLG
1979 Buckner..591...14......66.......284......319......437
1986 Buckner.629....18.....102......267......311......421
But when you consider the following information, your tune of the better RBI man being better, should change drastically...
In 1979 Buckner had 166 men on 2nd and 3rd.........10 of which were bases loaded situations.
In 1986 Buckner had 232 men on 2nd and 3rd.........25 of which were bases loaded situations(This is an OBVIOUS beneficial key RBI situation).
In 1979 Buckner had 184 men on 1st and drove in 8.
In 1986 Buckner had 263 men on 1st and drove in 13.
So because of the extra RBI Buckner is a run producer in 1986? And you will say because of his higher RBI total that, "a real run driven in is more valuable than a potential run." ??
Buckner was NOT anymore of a run producer in 1986, in fact he was a WORSE run producer in 1986.
There is no denying that Buckner was the man at the plate when those 102 runs came in, but the bulk of the credit for those runs goes to Wade Boggs & CO., not Bill Buckner(despite the fact that he is 'credited' with an RBI), and this is the error you and DrJ are making!!
I think amount of innings a pitcher can pitch will become much more important as far as contracts go. Limiting your bullpen innings gives you much more chances to win because your bullpen is full of pitchers with bad mechanics and thus cant be a starter or pitchers that lack the stuff to be starters. Pulling guys after 6 innings for no good reason to me is lame and hurts a team.
The bullpen should be there for your 4-5 starters who might suck 1/2 the time and need to be replaced due to suckiness not tiredness.
<< <i>WinPitcher, I will give this example again! Based on your method of comparisons, the Bill Buckner of 1986 is better than the Bill Buckner of 1979 by virtue of his large lead in RBI in '86.
YEAR...NAME....AB.....HR......RBI......AVG.......OB.....SLG
1979 Buckner..591...14......66.......284......319......437
1986 Buckner.629....18.....102......267......311......421
But when you consider the following information, your tune of the better RBI man being better, should change drastically...
In 1979 Buckner had 166 men on 2nd and 3rd.........10 of which were bases loaded situations.
In 1986 Buckner had 232 men on 2nd and 3rd.........25 of which were bases loaded situations(This is an OBVIOUS beneficial key RBI situation).
In 1979 Buckner had 184 men on 1st and drove in 8.
In 1986 Buckner had 263 men on 1st and drove in 13.
So because of the extra RBI Buckner is a run producer in 1986? And you will say because of his higher RBI total that, "a real run driven in is more valuable than a potential run." ??
Buckner was NOT anymore of a run producer in 1986, in fact he was a WORSE run producer in 1986.
There is no denying that Buckner was the man at the plate when those 102 runs came in, but the bulk of the credit for those runs goes to Wade Boggs & CO., not Bill Buckner(despite the fact that he is 'credited' with an RBI), and this is the error you and DrJ are making!! >>
Hoopster,
You are a lunatic. You try to prove your statistical arguments by finding the one exception to the rule instead of looking at long term trends and performance. You would be laughed out of a room of statisticians.
J
<< <i>Personally, I'd love to see a return to the days of guys racking up 20+ complete games and no one making a big deal about it. However, there's too much money being invested for the GM's to risk doing anything but babying their starters. >>
ditto. these whiners should grow a set and earn their paychecks
<< <i>Hoopster,
You are a lunatic. You try to prove your statistical arguments by finding the one exception to the rule instead of looking at long term trends and performance. You would be laughed out of a room of statisticians.
J >>
Since hoopster will undoubtedly be laughing too hard to respond when he reads this, I'll say it: someone here would be laughed out of a room of statisticians and it is not hoopster. I am in a room of statisticians, so I know it's not me, either.
WTF are you talking about Skip? This thread is about closers and I am not arguing with you regarding Buckner.
Or RBI'S Methinks you have your threads and people mixed up.
I think you need to step back from your computer and go take a nap!
Steve
Or are you, like him, in some twilight zone?
This is the CLOSER IS A BS POS.? thread not the RBI is a myth thread!
What are the stats on that? Both of you not knowing where the hell you are.
Steve
I will take a great Closer any time.
DrJ, the examples are abound of the RBI opportunties, and in everything I am talking about. This stuff isn't new I am talking about. It has been examined to the highest degree possible, and by many very smart people. By the looks of your posts it is clear you don't have a strong baseball foundation...you should probably stick to your day job.
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
Steve
Steve
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
<< <i>Well said Grote, hopefully we wont get another RBI reply.
Steve >>
Sorry, I forgot which thread this was when I bust a gut laughing at the statistician comment by Dr. J. I can't have been the only one.
Anyway, let's leave all the pitch count stuff out of it for now. Why did the Mets pull a relief pitcher who had faced two batters and struck out both? That's on point, and nobody answered it the first two times I asked.
And grote, I will have to admit that I do not know what your last comment means - I consider Billy Martin and Tony LaRussa two of the greatest managers of my lifetime, and I don't know what making one look like the other means. I'm guessing it's related to the "Martin blew out the A's pitchers arms" school of thought, but I'm just guessing. Trust me, you can't hurt my feelings, I'd like to know whatever it means.
You are correct...I was referring to the widely-held view that Martin burned out his pitchers while managing the A's, while LaRussa is probably as responsible as anyone else for the advent of the closer, the use of "situational" relievers, pitch counts and the 5-man rotation. It was a lighthearted analogy on my part, as both managers, great in their own right, had widely disaparate views on pitching.
I will agree with you that the decision to pull Smith in hindsight was a poor one. But Ayala is the closer, and had been fairly steady till that point, so I guess we have LaRussa and Eck to blame for that one, LOL.
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
And your last comment is exactly what I'm trying to address. Because Ayala is "the closer", they took out Smith. But, at the risk of sounding pompous (what? I'm too late?), that's wrong. The point should never be to get a specific pitcher into a game in a specific situation, the point should always, always, always be to have the best available pitcher on the mound. No, that doesn't mean using Greg Maddux for the first 100 innings of the season until his arm falls off - it means organizing your staff and rotation so that you expect to get as many innings as Maddux' arm will handle out of Maddux, and so on down your staff from best to worst pitcher. If a team did that - and had a good pitching staff - they wouldn't need 12 pitchers; they'd get along fine with 10 and have two extra bats/gloves on their bench. If a team followed that philosophy, they would never pull a relief pitcher after two K's on nine pitches. There could not have been any reason for doing that except that Ayala was "the closer" and this was a save situation and what was happening on the field never entered into it. You can program a computer, easily, to make pitching changes the way too many managers do today; why do we pay them at all if they're just going to follow the same playbook every other manager is following?
<< <i>Sep 15, at 7:02 AM in this thread, you wrote this Winpithcer..."How anyone can not see this is beyond me, sorta like how can anyone not see that RBI's are not important."
DrJ, the examples are abound of the RBI opportunties, and in everything I am talking about. This stuff isn't new I am talking about. It has been examined to the highest degree possible, and by many very smart people. By the looks of your posts it is clear you don't have a strong baseball foundation...you should probably stick to your day job. >>
You lunatic. Keep your Buckner RBI comparison out of every other thread in the Sports forum. This is a closer's thread, not a Buckner love fest. Take your meds.
I always thought the closer position was b.s., but it has grown to such epic proportions in baseball that we will probably never get rid of it. I can't prove it, but in many cases, leaving the starter in to get 2 or 3 more outs will probably work just as often as bringing in one new guy would. There will be blown games, but there are blown saves. This is not to say relief pitching is b.s. - if you have a starter who loses it in the 6th inning, he needs to be replaced. But with 2 outs in the 9th inning of a tie game, give the starter a chance to get that last out.
When you have pitchers like Rivera, isn't it "wasting" them to use them for a few pitches a night, and not even every night? If you developed Rivera as a reliever, and not just a closer, he could be brought in when the starter loses it in the 6th inning, and you'd have a solid arm out there for the rest of the game. Guys like Rivera and Papelbon are the best relief pitchers in their respective bullpens, but in many other cases the closer is just one of a bunch of other guys who has been given that designation. Look at how much closer "turnover" you have every year.
http://sportsfansnews.com/author/andy-fischer/
Bigfische, thanks. People get personal with me all the time(they seem to gloss over this fact), I apologize for doing the same. I haven't shown the ability to hold back as much as Dallas has....he is more refined than I.
I agree wholeheartedly, however just because they say something does not mean it is FACT, it is at times opinion.
Many times it is fact, yet many times it is no more then opinion.
Steve
If we knew that answer we would be the manager. I have no idea, I wish they left that guy in myself.
The only thing I can think of is the manager wanted to switch because he wanted the right hander to throw to a right handed batter?
(or a left hander to throw to a left handed batter?
If that is even the case I don't know anymore. It has been so long I have no idea what game you are even talking about.
Steve
All that said, Ayala may have a title of "closer", he is NOT a closer, never has been. He should have never been in there to try to finish off that game. Since everyone in the Mets bullpen blows, they may as well try the closer by committee scenario, it can't be any worse than what they've done so far to date.
<< <i>If we knew that answer we would be the manager. I have no idea, I wish they left that guy in myself. >>
Now there's the biggest difference between you and me. I assume managers are idiots; you're assuming they know something we don't know. We're each just making an assumption, but I think how modern managers handle their pitching staffs argues strongly for the "idiot" theory.
<< <i>The Red Sox tried a "closer by committee" approach a few years back, and it was a disaster. >>
I think that was at least as much because the pitchers they used in those roles simply weren't very good as it was because of any inherent flaw in the committee idea. Also, if the "committee" is too large, that means it includes some pitchers that are among the worst on the team. Rather than defining a "closer", what teams ought to be doing is defining their best relief pitcher, next best relief pitcher, etc. and getting the best one in to as many close/late situations as his arm can tolerate - whether they're up one in the ninth or down one in the seventh doesn't matter unless you care more about amassing "saves" than winning games. It seems to be lost on too many managers, but at the end of the game every inning counts the same, and games are lost in every inning, not just the ninth.
All that said, Ayala may have a title of "closer", he is NOT a closer, never has been. He should have never been in there to try to finish off that game. Since everyone in the Mets bullpen blows, they may as well try the closer by committee scenario, it can't be any worse than what they've done so far to date.
Some very interesting points here and very accurate ones, too, IMO. I think Berra said it best when he said that baseball was 90% mental, and the other half physical, as I think pitchers need to know what role they are going to be pitching in from a mental standpoint. There are some very effective closers who get hit hard in non-save situations, and there are only a few of them who can consistently get a save by pitching an inning plus. The theory here may be flawed, but until there is a drastic restructuring of the way relievers are used, I'm inclined to agree with the above post. I'd like to see some change though--it would have been very interesting if Manuel had brought Smith back out for the 9th the other day to close the game, as he had pitched a very effective 2/3 inning in the eighth, striking out both batters he faced. I have little faith in Ayala as closer (a position he has never held anyway), and would like to see the Mets use more of the hot-hand approach that Dallas mentioned, at least until it proves ineffective ot otherwise.
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
<< <i>From a pure mathematical standpoint, you can't argue with what dallas and hoopster are saying. The problem is mathematical theory is only absolute when there are no outside forces (i.e. humans) to mess with it. The Red Sox tried a "closer by committee" approach a few years back, and it was a disaster. The theory that nobody has a set bullpen role, they are only brought into the game as the situation dictates and presumably in the best mathematical situation possible (righty vs. righty, past performance, etc.), looks great on paper, but it never works. The problem is that most humans, and more specifically, baseball players, are creatures of habit, and thus, are more comfortable entering the game in the same situation every time (i.e. the beginning of the 8th, or 9th inning, or a save situation, etc.). That's why, invariably, closers have higher ERAs in non-save situations. Theoretically, it shouldn't make one bit of difference to a closer what the score in the 9th inning is when he enters the game, but it certainly isn't a coincidence that he is more apt to give up runs when the score is 6-2 rather than 5-3. Math and theoretical models don't always tell the whole story in baseball.
All that said, Ayala may have a title of "closer", he is NOT a closer, never has been. He should have never been in there to try to finish off that game. Since everyone in the Mets bullpen blows, they may as well try the closer by committee scenario, it can't be any worse than what they've done so far to date. >>
This post is interesting if only because it is a classic example of pure conjecture masquerading as facts. Not that I hold this against you-- we've all done this from time to time. But it's still worth pointing out. The fact is that one, or two, or five failed 'closer by committee' experiments would not, in any way, demonstrate that this would not be the optimal bullpen arrangement until you've controlled for the quality of the pitchers involved.
<< <i>The fact is that one, or two, or five failed 'closer by committee' experiments would not, in any way, demonstrate that this would not be the optimal bullpen arrangement until you've controlled for the quality of the pitchers involved. >>
That's a good way to put it. I think it is almost certainly the case that every team so far that has tried the committee approach has done so because they didn't have a single great, or even very good, pitcher to designate the closer.
<< <i>
<< <i>The fact is that one, or two, or five failed 'closer by committee' experiments would not, in any way, demonstrate that this would not be the optimal bullpen arrangement until you've controlled for the quality of the pitchers involved. >>
That's a good way to put it. I think it is almost certainly the case that every team so far that has tried the committee approach has done so because they didn't have a single great, or even very good, pitcher to designate the closer. >>
One thing I missed here is that you would also have to weigh those results against the benefits which the team would accrue from not having one of its best pitchers languishing in the bully as he waited for a save situation.
So, for example, let's say the Padres go to a closer by committee arrangement, and decide to have Hoffman as the first man to come out of the bullpen in a close game (it could be the fifth, sixth, seventh inning, whatever). Obviously having Hoffman (or at least the Hoffman of old) pitching more innings will help the team, since he's better than the pitcher who would be otherwise eating up those innings. Thus, even if the closer by committee crew screwed things up more often than Hoffman would have in the ninth, that deficiency would be compensated for (to a greater or lesser degree) by the increase in Hoffman sightings on the mound.
In other words, for a closer by committee arrangement to not be optimal you would a) first have to show that, when you control for the quality of the arms involved, pitchers in these situations perform below expectation, and b) this fall off is more dramatic than the increase in the expected number of team wins that will be attended by the increase in innings pitched by one of the team's best hurlers.