OT- Baseball Closers
I've had this thought for a while and I wondered what people thought of it or if they have seen any statistical analysis(some searches turned up nothing) that could back it up or prove it wrong.
My thought is that saving your closer(best relief pitcher) for the end of the game doesn't really make any sense and that you should use your closer in the tightest spot not the end of the game to maximize his value.
Currently the conventional wisdom is to save your closer until you have the lead and have him pitch the 9th inning to close the game. Depending on how much work he has had or the coaches mood sometimes they will bring them in in tied games or extra innings. It seems often times that closers don't work as many innings as they should and that many games that potentially could be saved or won are lost because of this. Here are a few scenarios to illustrate my point.
You are playing St Louis and you are up 2 runs in the 7th inning. St. Louis has 1 out and a runner on 1st base, up to bat is Matt Holliday and on deck is Albert Pujols. The manager takes out the starter and brings in a reliever(because of the situation he is probably the 2nd or 3rd best reliever). Considering the situation in this game and the quality of hitters coming up I contend you should bring in your best pitcher in this situation. If we were the Yankees I would bring in Rivera right now and try to protect my lead right here. I'll take my chances with my other pitchers against the bottom of the order later. Rivera is my best pitcher I want to use him as much as I can without burning him out and I want him in the most intense situations. This game could be lost right here with a big inning and Rivera would never even see the field.
It's the 6th inning and you are down 2. The bases are loaded and 2 outs. A hit here cracks this game wide open an out keeps you right in it. I bring in my stud to get this out and then hold the next inning while I try to mount a comeback.
The downside to this theory is that at the end of the game there would be times you don't have your best pitcher around so you could potentially blow more games and depending on wether you believe only certain guys can handle the last inning pressure they could blow more saves than the "closer" saved games when he pitched earlier. I don't buy into the 9th inning is a differnt pressure theory and obviosuly I think there are more games to be won than lost by shuffling your pitcher lineup around.
So in closing I think that your best pitchers should be utilized againt the other teams best hitters and/or the most crucial situations and not always the the end of the game to best utilize the talents of your staff.
Your thoughts?
Widely held view. It's sabermetrics -- read "Moneyball".
I know of moneyball and sabermetrics, but I don't follow baseball as closely as football so I never actually read it. Curious no one is using it considering the popularity of sabermetrics if it's right in the book. So I guess you just told me my discovery that the earth is round is just a tad late to get any credit?
Guess I'm buying Moneyball off the discount rack. What a stooopid I am.
Ya, every baseball fan should read Moneyball, it really helps understand the decisions GM's make...also should read Ball Four (for different reasons). Also, as a Cards fan I feel it necessary to say Matt Holliday never hits in front of Pujols, not that it affects your point or anything. I agree with your point, I think managers do it because players like to have a specific role and there's the idea that the last three outs are the toughest from a mental standpoint. But if it's the 7th or 8th inning and the middle of the order is up, it makes much more sense to bring in your closer then.
I'm a huge baseball guy but admittedly haven't read Moneyball and only vaguely know sabermetrics.
I would assume a major part of what they both don't consider much is the mental aspect of it.
Jose Valverde knows he's going to pitch the ninth, maybe the tenth. He mentally and physically prepares for that. He knows it every night. Just like the other guys know that they have their roles to play. So players are mentally prepared for certain situations and may not be as effective if they have to mentally and physically prepare for all possible situations.
Just imagine in Valverde is getting up 2-3 times a game and warming up instead of once. Those are untotaled pitch counts that people don't think of that often.
Plus, you mentioned another reason - if I burn Valverde in the 7th in a big situation, then what do I do? The tigers go to Benoit for an inning, maybe two, but at some point you're relying on situational guys to get through entire innings. Instead, trust your situational guys to get your big situational outs.
I feel like baseball has become so inundated with statistics that people forget to consider the things that can't be measured - the mental aspect, the roster make-up, etc. One thing I will say is that the save stat itself is dumb. If I'm closing out a 4 run game, my closer is coming in, without a doubt.
You make some pretty good points. I agree it would probably take some time to change some guys thinking about their role and it would take a total organizational commitment (paying the best guy well despite his probable lack of stats) to get ti done, but I think it could be done. It just drives me nuts when you see a Cabrera or a Pujols in a key situation and teams bring out some scrub in the 7th inning to try to get him out and you have a stud that potentially never get s in the game.
I just think it comes down to a utilization of assets.
If we could bring it back to Denard and Michigan it would be similar to Borges deciding not to run Denard much until the end of the game to save his legs and not wear out our best weapon until the end of the game(pretty viable plan)......now consider it is the 3rd qtr and we are down 17 to Notre Dame...do we still save Denard for a meaningless 4th qtr or do we run our absolute best stuff and risk him wearing out/getting hurt before the end of the game? I think the obvious answer is to take the risk.
"It just drives me nuts when you see a Cabrera or a Pujols in a key situation and teams bring out some scrub in the 7th inning to try to get him out and you have a stud that potentially never get s in the game."
I think this is the biggest logic flaw in your (and others who hold it) viewpoint. Managers aren't throwing out "some scrub." They're throwing up a very specifically chosen situational guy. Often it's a lefty that is really tough on left-handed hitters (note: most closers are hard-throwing righties). Other times it is the guy who has a track record of success against the hitter. There's a lot more strategy going into the decision than simply "get my best pitcher out there." Baseball is still a game of numbers - if Valverde has a 80% chance of getting him out and the situational guy has a 78% chance of getting him out, why burn Valverde when there's two more innings in which he'll be more valuable (when you can't recover offensively)?
You're right, it is about maximizing assets. Your relievers become more valuable as the game wears on because you can't make up games in the final inning(s). But in the seventh and earlier, there's often not a huge difference between a situational guy and a closer. Often, the situational guy is the guy that has the best chance of getting that one big out.
April 24th, 2011 at 12:00 PM ^
I like your points, but it's not cut and dry on either side. Is Valverde better than a situational lefty on in most situiations probably not, but on the other hand if I have Mariano Rivera the odds I have anybody in my pen that even comes close to his efficiency is doubtful.
I understand you have specialists and it's not some scrub, but you obviously know a lot about basball so you also know a lot of times the pitcher is thrown out there on a hunch or just because of fatigue or numbers and there is not definitive data to go on and it's just his turn or his inning.
I understand your point that say Magglio Ordonez is batting .230 against righties and you have a guy in your pen that has a .137 avg against righties and has only given up 1 hit in 13ab lifetime against Magglio so this is a perfect situation to not burn your stud and use him, but I would say the times you have a clear cut advantage are far less than when you are just sending a guy out there based on the inning or because you used the other guy yesterday.
"Is Valverde better than a situational lefty on in most situiations probably not, but on the other hand if I have Mariano Rivera the odds I have anybody in my pen that even comes close to his efficiency is doubtful."
But you cannot look at JUST that situation. You have to not only consider how much better your closer is, but also you need to consider how much worse your other relievers are that will pitch in the eighth or ninth.
Are there extreme situations when your situation may make "clear" sense to bring the closer in early? Probably. Here's the only one I can think of:
- Late season or playoffs where you must win and are willing to really stretch arms.
- If winning: tieing runner ON BASE, go-ahead at the plate (or worse). If tied/losing: at least two runners on, game still in reach (trailing 1 or 2).
- Heart of the order up.
- Seventh inning.
If it's the eighth inning, you bring in your set-up man or your closer early. If you don't have a great set-up man, bring in the closer. If it's the sixth inning, you're going to see the big hitters again, so save your best pitcher.
So that covers point 4 - bringing a closer in early would probably have to happen in the seventh.
If you're winning, you're making a strong play to prevent the comeback and win the game right there. You need a reason to make that play. To me, it would be having the tying runners on with the #3 or #4 batter coming. Probably not even #5. Depending on number of outs, I may consider doing it with the #1 or #2 hitter.
If you're losing, it must be by only one or two runs with a drastic chance for that difference to jump to 4 or 5. If it's already that high, you've got a ton of work to do and are really looking to just stretch the game for extras with the hope that you can rely on your closer for a more important situation. Again in this scenario, the players on base and players at bat would be similar to above.
I say my first point because you couldn't have your closer "on call" for every inning of every game. It just isn't healthy for his arm and for the team's long term success. Late in the year, long term success no longer is a factor.
So even if these situations are all met, you still have to go back to the debate of whether or not your situational guy is a better option and is the trade off worth it - can your bullpen still get through the game.
IMO, this is why you see what you see. Plus, most teams don't have that "for sure" closer where you know he'll get an out no matter what. I think in the playoffs you see more of it, for the reasons mentioned - I think Gardenhire has sent out Nathan for some 2 inning saves in the last couple years - but over a 162 game season, the traditional closer role makes the most sense.
April 24th, 2011 at 12:58 PM ^
not just saves. RBI's, batting average, ect. all are very flawed.
Closers are the most overpaid players in baseball. Saves are the most overrated stat in baseball. I don't necessarily agree with the premise that the closer is the best reliever on the team. They may have the best stuff, but they're prima donnas that are in most cases psychologically dependent on coming into a clean game, ie no one on, no one out in ninth. If you can't tell, I'm not a big fan of closers.
Dude, tell this to Ozzie Guillen and the White Sox's 6 blown saves this year.
April 24th, 2011 at 12:02 PM ^
Stepping into the closer role turned the best lefty reliever in baseball, Matt Thornton, into a guy who looks like he forgot how to pitch. The last 3 outs of the game really are the toughest to get, and it takes some real mental toughness to do it. Blowing leads in the 9th takes a hugely negative toll on a team. In the case of the White Sox, we should have started year off 10-2 if we don't blow the leads we did. Now we're 8-13 because that sent us into a tailspin. The value of a solid closer just can't be overstated.
I think Mariano Rivera, Trevor Hoffman, Dennis Eckersley, Bruce Sutter, Lee Smith, and many more would have something to say about that. Sure, there are the John Rocker's of the world, but the best closers are not prima donnas. I'm gonna guess you're a Cubs fan.
Interesting stuff, and I agree...but more factors would come into play for me, as you allude to above. Batting order, the list of my available pitchers and how effective they are against the folks at bat, on deck, etc. Is the pitcher known to be a groundball pitcher, flyball pitcher? What baseball park are we in?
The theory of the closer is that if you give up the lead in the seventh you still have time to make up the needed runs. Closers have more to do with a lack of outs left. If you lose the lead in the bottom of the ninth, you lose. If you give up the lead in the eighth, you still have trips to the plate left.
Honestly, I think it can be done either way. If I have a lineup of absolute thumpers, I'll save him for the ninth. If it isn't exactly murderers row trying to recapture the lead, use him to preserve any lead.
A majority of teams have specialty guys that fill certain roles, leading to the closer pitching the 9th and getting the "toughest 3 outs." Its a pressure situation thing...besides, you cant just say, "Hey, Giant Potato, we're in a pinch in the 7th right now, come in and save our asses." It takes time to warm up and you can't assume tight situations...if its a tight game in the 7th then its probably still close in the 9th. Most teams have a 7th inning guy (Ryan Perry), an 8th inning guy (Benoit), and a fairly reliable (and pleasantly theatrical) closer (Valverde), along with specialty pitchers like the long-relief guy, the go-to lefty, etc. In this situation, Jose isn't necessarily the best of the bunch, but has the experience. They all are very good pitchers and have very specific roles. Starters are asked to go at least 6 strong (rule doesnt apply to JV) so the pieces are in place to essentially close the door from the 7th on.
Also, another thing to consider: A closer is a game shortener. When you go up against the Tigers, the Yankees, the Giants - anyone with an ace closer - you are playing an eight inning game. This has huge implications. Opponents of the Tigers have a strategic disadvantage when they know if they are down that they have one less inning to get things done.
This may force early pinch hitters, overly aggressive play early on (PERFECT EXAMPLE: yesterday Ozzie Guillen playing the infield in in a 1-run game). If I'm an opposing manager and in the 7th inning I have the heart of the order coming up, I'm going to play a bit more aggressive because I know they aren't coming up again, unless it's against a closer who will likely shut them down. I may try to steal a base with a low success rate knowing I may not get another runner in scoring position.
If Valverde comes in, my hand is forced in a good way - I play conservative, hope my big hitters can come through. If they can't, I have two more innings against pitchers they have a much better chance against.
Teams usually have one lights out pitcher in the pen. The goal of many games is to get to a starter early so that you can get to those less than average relievers in non-situational places.
Good catch on the "shortening the game," phrase. I should have used that, but my brain is hangover mush right now.
April 24th, 2011 at 10:13 AM ^
Yeah, I don't accept the premise of the "some scrub" idea.
You have to see the concept of Holds. A hold, for those who don't keep track of this statistic, is when a pitcher comes in and pitches in a 3-run or fewer game - but does not record the last out of the game and does not give up the tying run.
Looking only at ERA, of the top 50 holds-getters in 2010, only 7 had an ERA of 4.00 or higher. 10 of the top-50 saves-getters fall into that category. While this is an extremely rudimentary way of looking at it, in the end, the goal of a pitcher is to not give up runs.
Set-up guys are starting to get bigger contracts, and becoming more specialized and more talented. Teams don't just want one reliever who can blow people away anymore. They want at least 3.
April 24th, 2011 at 11:29 AM ^
ERA is not a good stat. There is so much out of the player's control that can affect his ERA. FIP, BABIP, or even WHIP are better statistics to evaluate a pitcher by.
xFIP might be even better than that. FIP tells what did happen. xFIP takes into account things like line drive percentage, grounder percentage, ect. and gets a number for what you'd expect given the type of balls hit.
Also for pitchers, strikeout rate is extremely important. Yet for batters, there is no coorelation between creating runs and K rate.
April 24th, 2011 at 10:14 AM ^
Reminds me of what Bill James has said
Sabermetrics is an interesting discipline
April 24th, 2011 at 10:17 AM ^
Manny Acta did something similar against the Red Sox earlier this year. He didn't bring in his closer, but he also didn't use the "I only use this guy in the seventh inning or later" formula when he brought in Raphael Perez in the fifth inning. He said that getting the out (I think it was Ortiz) was the crux of the game.
No the closer Chris Perez, of course, but still goes with the OP's theory...
And didn't James advocate a committee of closers? That was tried by at least one team, but as soon as it failed once (as any closer fails over the course of a season once in a while) the team got set upon by the old school wolves and they stopped doing it.
Before winning the WS in 2004 the Red Sox did try that with Embree and a bunch of other relievers, it didn't work out.
Red Sox have always been open to Bill James' philosphy
Correction, Theo Epstein has always been open to Bill James' philosphy. You might even be able to include John Henry in that two. It wasn't until he took over the Red Sox and hired Epstein that they started using sabermetrics more.
April 24th, 2011 at 10:26 AM ^
There are several problems with your logic...
First off you don't just put in your best pitcher or "closer" at any point in a tight situation...
Lets start off by first saying if your closer is a right hander like rivera on the yankees..
Ok... now you say lets bring him in during a close game in the 6th or 7th inning to face the best hitters on another team.. That's fine and all, except you aren't thinking very clearly..
Every decision in baseball is based of situations, they aren't going to bring in their closer in the 6th inning just because he is the best pitcher..? He is a closer for a reason, most Closers are not use to coming into mid, or early game situations.. They are also going with scouting reports.. When a relief pitcher comes into a game it is for a reason, not because the starting pitcher is tired and they are just replacing him. Maybe there are 2 men on with 1 or 2 outs and Pujols is up. They take out the starting pitcher who is a righty, and bring in a lefty who pujols has struggled against in the past with runners in scoring position.
This is the reason why some pitchers come in and pitch to 1 guy then they are taken out and say another righty comes in to face the next batter because of what they have done in the past against them.
So to end this, they aren't going to waste their closer.. All closers are so use to coming into games in the 9th inning that a lot can struggle early in games. Reason why a lot of starters in the Majors get moved to be a closer and just throw for one inning because they couldn't handle starting or relief roles and are better off being able to come into 1 inning to close it down.
a relief pitcher that early as well, it's also a pretty good indication that your starter had a bad game and you aren't likely winning anyways.
April 24th, 2011 at 11:17 AM ^
As a Yankees fan it always seems to me that Rivera pitches better when the game is on the line. I don't follow the team much anymore, now that I have Michigan football, so I haven't watched that many games in the past 4-5 years, but in 1or 2 run games I feel Rivera actually pitches better than when he is brought in in tie games or before the ninth. I'm sure there is some place that can be looked up and it may prove me wrong. Rivera may also be a unique case because he is so different from every other closer in the league. How many closers were going to be the next Rivera and are no longer any good?
April 24th, 2011 at 11:59 AM ^
"I don't buy into the 9th inning is a differnt pressure theory"
I was a closer, and trust me there is definitely more pressure pitching in the last inning than earlier in the game. Some pitchers just cant handle the role.
I must point out a few errors with your Cardinal's scenario.
1) Pujols bats before Holliday. Pujols third, Holliday fourth, Berkman fifth.
2) If I was the other team, I'd really love for St. Louis to take the lead right there. Because then when we stupidly send out Ryan Franklin for a save chance, he can blow it again. It's a guaranteed win for you if we're leading in the eighth or ninth and Franklin pitches.
It's not about the mental side of the pitcher or conventional wisdom or any of that. It's manager's wanting to save their ass. Managers and coaches in all sports will routinely use sub-optimal strategies because they're the safe route. If a manager uses their ace reliever in the 7th inning to get out of a bases loaded jam, but then they lose it in the 9th, he'll get cruicified by the fans and media. Nevermind that it was most likely the correct strategy. If he uses his 2nd or 3rd best reliever in the 7th, and they give up a grand slam, no one is going to question the manager. He did the "right" thing in the eyes of idiots so people will just be upset they lost.
You see the same thing in Football. Coaches will punt when it's incredibly stupid to do so just because they are "supposed" to do it. Perfect example from a couple years ago: Patriots go for it on 4th and 2 against the Colts. They don't make it, Colts score and win the game. Fans and media go apeshit for 2 weeks about how awful the decision was to them. The reality is, the Pats made the right choice based on game situation, it just didn't work out that time. Pretty much only Bill Belichick has the guts to actually do that, and the history/support with his team to do it, have it not work, and not have to worry about job security.
As for the conversation above about books, Moneyball is a nice read for a story, but pretty much the only lesson to take from it is that if you are a team with a limited budget, you should figure out what the market is undervaluing and stock up on that. At the time, it was high OBP hitters. That's quickly evolved to defensive players as the league as a whole has become more intelligent and those high OBP guys aren't as cheap.
If you want a really good read on stats and their application to baseball, go buy this book:
It's a hundred times better than Moneyball.
Joe Torre would often bring Rivera in for the last out or two of the eighth.
You bring up another good point though - closers that are saved for the ninth (or late eighth) or for a save situation, in general, can go "all out" without fear of having to save any arm strength for further innings or to prevent another pitcher from having to come in.
April 24th, 2011 at 10:15 PM ^
I don't think it's a bad theory. Sometimes I feel the same way. However, there really aren't more than maybe a dozen truly dominant closers. Actually, a lot of teams have a set-up man or two that are just as good as--or better than--their closer, so they end up doing this without really "trying;" if that makes sense.
Take the team I follow (Atlanta) as an example. Craig Kimbrel seems to be a lights out closer. Probably one of the 5 or 10 nastiest relievers in the game since he came up last season (54Ks in 30 1/3 IP for his career). Even so, our top set-up guy Jonny Venters is on basically the same level (double digit k/9 and a ridiculously high ground ball %). Venters throws a sinker that's so heavy that batters almost never get the ball in the air. In the situation you described, Venters would go in and have a great chance of getting out of it with a double play ball, coming back to pitch the 8th, and then Kimbrel is still there in the ninth.
Obviously it depends on the team, but I don't think this costs teams nearly as many runs as some think because the difference between a closer and his team's top set-up men is usually negligible.
April 24th, 2011 at 11:36 PM ^
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_James
<br>
<br>All the math has been done (by bill James) on this one but few teams ever follow the advice of what the stats say...I guess managers want to feel as if they matter...which they don't.
April 24th, 2011 at 11:50 PM ^
you bring in your closer for the 9th for the simple reason that his facial hair is more intimidating than your other relievers, see:
and I remind you Wilson led the NL in saves and closed out the WS, before you mock him I will also remind you: CHAMPS! Fear the Beard, Go Giants