Closing Argument

by RyanL1204 on Sep 28, 2011 5:50 PM EDT

I have a bone to pick with closers. Well... I guess it's not so much the closers themselves but the way they are managed. It is my opinion that they are overpaid for the value they bring. I am going to do my best to support this with numbers, but I honestly don't even think I have to. I am not trying to say that most closers aren't very good pitchers, what I am trying to say is that teams aren't using them to their fullest potential. I am not sure whether or not I am beating a dead horse, bringing up a legitimate argument, or perhaps most of you will think I am way out in left.

I am going to start simple. Lets just look at the amount of money these guys are making for every inning they pitch. I know that some would bring up the argument that the innings that a closer pitches are more important than others, but I don't necessarily feel that way.

Closers:

Name	Salary	IP	$/IP
Joakim Soria	$4,000,000	60.1	$ 66,555
Mariano Rivera	$15,000,000	61.1	$245,499
Jonathan Papelbon	$12,000,000	63.2	$189,873
Jose Valverde	$7,000,000	71.1	$ 98,452
Heath Bell	$7,500,000	62.2	$120,578

Now some starters:

Name	Salary	IP	$/IP
Justin Verlander	$12,850,000	251.0	$ 51,195
Zack Greinke	$13,500,000	165.2	$ 81,719
CC Sabathia	$24,285,714	237.1	$102,428
Roy Halladay	$20,000,000	233.2	$ 85,763

My biggest problem with the above is that one of the highest paid players on the Royals roster is not playing enough. I think there is no doubt that Joakim is a very talented pitcher and all I am asking is to get the guys with the most talent on the field more often. Joakim is also due for some pretty large pay increases the next couple of years.

Now, lets look at WAR from this season for closers compared to other relief pitchers.

Closers:

Name	WAR
Joakim Soria	0.7
Mariano Rivera	3.5
Jonathan Papelbon	2.1
Jose Valverde	2.6
Heath Bell	1.7

Relief "Set Up Men":

Name	WAR
Sean Marshall	2.5
Jonny Venters	3.6
Eric O'Flaherty	3.7
Matt Belisle	1.1

I thought these numbers were interesting, other than the fact that Joakim has just not had a good year. In every case the non-closer has pitched more innings than the closers have. I hope that at least some of you agree that bullpens are already too large and that 1 inning pitched every 3rd game is not ideal. All I want to see is more innings pitched so they can have a bigger effect on games. Isn't that what we all want from our best pitchers.

It is likely I am oversimplifying things, I tend to do that. So I want your opinion.

Poll

Is the closer position overrated?

Yes

56 votes

No

10 votes

66 votes | Poll has closed

Tweet Comment 15 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

This is a pretty accepted truth.

Then again, I think there is a bit of a macro/micro situation. Obviously, the big picture knows that starters are way more important than relievers. The IP is an easy indicator. Then again, relievers appear in about twice as many games, and if the reliever is good, they are usually meaningful/close games.

My personal favorite stat (even though it isn’t close to the best) is the Pythagorean W/L. The best way to trick it is with a good bullpen. You win your close games, you make yourself look luckier. When you are in a fight for a few games in a season, a few good bullpen arms can go a long way. Well, they go a short way, and a less valuable way than starters, but I think they have more value than most people give them.

Overrated? For sure. Overpaid? Totally. Unless you are super rich and you can pay tons to lock up those extra wins—because they will get you a couple extra wins.

by dejezeus on Sep 28, 2011 6:52 PM EDT reply actions

But again, you're right.

Overrated, and they should pitch more innings. Especially coming in to face the toughest hitters.

by dejezeus on Sep 28, 2011 6:52 PM EDT reply actions

I have to side with the conventional baseball wisdom here

Managers have tried to tinker with closers by committee, two inning saves, and probably countless other attempts and ideas, but we always end up back in the same spot.

Closers are just a unique breed of player that rely on mental strengths that other pitchers just don’t have. Pitching, moreso than many other positions in professional athletics, relies on something intangible (call it confidence if you want) that a pitcher needs to succeed.

by Loose Seal on Sep 29, 2011 10:30 AM EDT reply actions

I agree that those things haven't worked,

but lets say you are in the 8th inning with the top of the lineup to face. Wouldn’t you rather your “closer” pitch against the 2-3-4 hitters and then have someone else pitch the 9th against lesser talent?

by RyanL1204 on Sep 29, 2011 11:54 AM EDT up reply actions

No, the problem is that closers, for one reason or another, performs best in the 9th inning and the 8th inning guy, assuming the team has one, performs best in the 8th. When you start tinkering, the whole bullpen rotation gets out of their comfort zone. I don’t know why and don’t have the advanced statistics, psychology degree, or baseball knowledge to explain it, but I have to think that teams don’t do this because it doesn’t work.

by Loose Seal on Sep 29, 2011 12:27 PM EDT up reply actions

Can you cite specific examples

of managers using closer by committee (for any length of time) or 2 inning saves in recent years?

I disagree on the closer needing to pitch the 9th, and only with a lead. There is nothing that I am aware of that backs up the contention that using one of your more talented pitchers in that role is beneficial.

I looked up the American League leaders in Games Finished since 1975. Their IP/G topped out at 2.14 IP/G by Bill Campbell in 1976. Rich Gossage had 2.12 IP/G in 1978. The last GF leader to average over 2 IP per appearance was Dan Quizenberry in 1985, with 2.01 IP/G.

Jose Valverde led the AL in games finished this year, but only averaged 0.96 IP/G. He is the third person to lead the AL in GF since 1976 who averaged UNDER 1 IP per appearance.

Thus, the current way of using closers might be considered today’s norm, but is far from traditional.

by Rufus R. Jones on Sep 29, 2011 12:24 PM EDT up reply actions

Off the top of my head

the Rangers, Rays, Cardinals and Blue Jays have all tinkered with closers by committee in the past 5 or so years. Papelbon in 2011 is the most glaring example of a team that decided to limit the 1+ inning saves. I recall the Royals used to do 1+ inning saves more with Soria, but have gotten away from it in the past couple years.

I don’t really have an explanation why today’s method is the best, and haven’t seen any data explaining it. If there is good data showing a superior method, I’d gladly change my opinion. But, for now, I am going to put a little faith in the 30 managers and front offices who have tried but can’t find a superior method.

by Loose Seal on Sep 29, 2011 12:37 PM EDT up reply actions

Good luck with this plan

I am going to put a little faith in the 30 managers and front offices

Kila's slash for Apr 20 to May 4, 2011, right before he was sent down: .276 / .344 / .448

by SagehenMacGyver47 on Sep 29, 2011 1:23 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs

Is your signature conveying that Kila shouldn't have been sent down

Alex Gordon is really good
Blaine Gabbert is really good
MJD is really good
Never forget Matt Treanor

by tiquanunderwear on Sep 29, 2011 2:13 PM EDT up reply actions

It's a long story, but my sig is the response to

“Kila had 300+ PAs and wasn’t good enough”. My view is that three small opportunities wasn’t enough to really judge Kila’s ability at the ML level – maybe he’s good, maybe not, but we still don’t know. My sig is a small sample size argument to counter a small sample size argument — essentially, if you’re willing to accept that 300-ish PAs means he’s bad, then you also have to accept that 30-ish most recent ones means he’s not.

Kila's slash for Apr 20 to May 4, 2011, right before he was sent down: .276 / .344 / .448

by SagehenMacGyver47 on Sep 29, 2011 2:53 PM EDT up reply actions

Multiple inning saves and closers pitching over 100 ip per season worked exceedingly well in the 70's and 80's

And closers by committee have failed (in short stints) because it has been tried with bad bullpens. Using several bad pitchers as closer obviously isn’t going to work. I think there’s every reason to believe that using multiple pretty good relievers as closer, based on matchups and maximizing leverage for the best pitchers would work.

You may know me as NYRoyal.

by Scott McKinney on Sep 29, 2011 6:59 PM EDT up reply actions

Absolutely.

Saying committee doesn’t work is absurd. No one would say platoon doesn’t work just because it is two awful players. Well, no one credible.

I think the key to extending the overall innings is to bring in your best pitcher to face the best of a lineup (like in the 8th) and then let them stay in. Not sure it will make up the innings difference sufficiently.

by dejezeus on Sep 29, 2011 7:47 PM EDT up reply actions

I would do what was usually done with closers in the 70's and 80's

Bring the best reliever into the game in a high leverage situation (which could be in the 7th, 8th or 9th inning) and then just leave him in for the rest of the game.

You may know me as NYRoyal.

by Scott McKinney on Sep 29, 2011 9:50 PM EDT up reply actions