The closer thread

[Bellhorn04]

I’m fascinated by the topic of closers. Why is that? I don’t know, maybe it’s because of Red Sox history.

 

In 1986 we lost the World Series because Calvin Schiraldi and Bob Stanley couldn’t close it out with a 2-run lead, 2 outs and the bases empty. Schiraldi actually had two blown saves in that game, amazingly enough.

 

Bob Stanley also played a part in us losing the playoff game to the Yankees in 1978. So he's got quite a lot going for him as far as how Sox fans remember him. Same with Schiraldi.

 

Then in 2003 we lost the ALCS because Grady didn’t like his Closer by Committee options.

 

So then they fired Grady and they signed Keith Foulke. And lo and behold, Foulke did an incredible job in 2004 and was a huge factor in beating the Yankees and bringing it home for the first time in my 35 years of fandom.

 

In 2007 we won it again, and not coincidentally, Papelbon pitched 10.2 scoreless innings that postseason.

 

Some other things that stand out for me about closers...

 

Pressure – is the pressure of being a closer really that great, or is it overrated by fans and the media?

 

I think the answer is that the pressure really is that great in important games, especially playoff games.

 

In 1986 when we pulled off an amazing comeback against the Angels, the closer who blew the series was a man named Donnie Moore. The failure haunted Moore the rest of his days. In 1989 he committed suicide, after first shooting his wife, who survived.

 

Dennis Eckersley. Fantastic, Hall of Fame career. But the enduring image for me, the one that’s been replayed a million times, is one-legged Kirk Gibson taking him out of the park to win Game One of the 1988 WS. Eck also gave up a huge, season-turning home run to Roberto Alomar in the 1992 ALCS.

 

Rivera. The best closer of all time. But two blown saves by Mo in 2001 and 2004 prevented the Yankees from adding two more titles.

[Youk Of The Nation]

Maybe they handle the pressure better because of all that coffee.

[Thunder]

Don't forget that Jim Johnson and Rivera have 3 straight blown saves.

[Bellhorn04]

Don't forget that Jim Johnson and Rivera have 3 straight blown saves.

 

That's right. Wow, Johnson blew his 9th save last night. That is a huge number.

 

The bad seasons of Rodney and Johnson are a big reason we're ahead of the Rays and the Orioles in the standings.

[Bellhorn04]

In 2012 Johnson only blew 3 saves in 54 opportunities, for a 94.4% success rate.

 

This year he has blown 9 out of 48, for an 81.2% rate.

[sk7326]

I think the pressure is a bit overrated - or the rush to use pressure as to why the inning went to seed. After all, when Rivera blew the 2001 save that inning did not have a single ball hit hard. These are grownups in a job they've been doing for a long time.

 

Also, a lot of the import of the job has been stage managed away. Consider in 1974, Mike Marshall won the Cy Young as a reliever. He was reliever who made 106 appearances and pitched 208 innings. 21 saves yes, but also a 15-12 record! Compare that with the lavishly compensated Jonathan Papelbon who only is giving 60-70 innings or value - and often in very specialized situations.

 

In 2003, Grady I think never understood the whole closer by committee idea - and just seemed to pick guys randomly, which was not at all the intent. When Bill James put that idea out there, it was making the simple observation that you want your best pitchers to be pitching when it matters the most, and a lot of times that is not the 9th inning. This makes sense - a 2 run lead with the bases empty and 3 outs to get is not a difficult situation. You shouldn't be saving a closer for that situation and using lesser pitchers for those highly leveraged at bats in the 7th and 8th. Heck, in 2004 Tito understood this fully - and had no shame in bringing in Foulke in the 7th when things were getting hairy.

 

Papelbon has been a good reliever and occasionally great (though not as consistently since 2008). That said, $14M is a lot for 60 innings of work ... and unless he is a guy you are happy bringing into the non-9th inning of a game, I am not sure how irreplaceable he really is.

 

Saves are a weird made up stat which do not really help with identifying good relievers. But arbitration pays for them and so does free agency, so we are stuck with a lot of 1 inning closers being overpaid for a very very narrow job description.

[Bellhorn04]

Saves are a weird made up stat which do not really help with identifying good relievers. But arbitration pays for them and so does free agency, so we are stuck with a lot of 1 inning closers being overpaid for a very very narrow job description.

 

I agree that the save stat, as it is currently defined, is a poor one.

 

However, we need a save stat of some kind, because we need a blown save stat. I think blown saves are actually the crucial stat. If a closer only blows two or three saves over the course of a season it usually means they've done an excellent job.

[a700hitter]

I agree that the save stat, as it is currently defined, is a poor one.

 

However, we need a save stat of some kind, because we need a blown save stat. I think blown saves are actually the crucial stat. If a closer only blows two or three saves over the course of a season it usually means they've done an excellent job.

5 for Mo and 6 for Papelbon. The same highway.

[sk7326]

Well, here is some research done on win expectancy given a situation http://www.hardballtimes.com/thtstats/other/wpa_inquirer.php that can say some things about closers and what is a key situation:

 

If you take the numbers based on how average teams do - basically you take a 1 run lead into the 9th inning without baserunners - the Win Probability is 88.03% basically need to cash in 9 out 10 of these sorts of games to be doing your job as a closer. A 2-run lead, the probabilty goes to 95.27% - in other words, you'd want your closer to be able to nail down 19 of 20 of these. (note the win prob goes down if you are the road team as there is no chance to come back from a blown lead). A 3-run lead, the probability goes to 98.07%, basically 49 out of 50 save chances. If a closer has an equal number of those sorts of games, you are looking at 94% being sort of the required number, a bit less than 19/20 in save chances to be doing a "good job". Obviously the percentages go up based on outs as well, if you have one out to get with the bases empty and a 1 run lead, it becomes 97.34% (basically 30 of 31 chances).

 

What is interesting is the four out save ... if a reliever comes in with a 1 run lead with 2 gone in the 8th, here are some win probs:

 

runner at 1st: 84.93%

runner at 2nd: 82.12%

runner at 3rd: 81.23%

1st and 2nd: 80.12%

1st and 3rd: 78.57%

2nd and 3rd: 75.02%

bases loaded: 72.40%

 

2nd and 3rd in a tie game?: 47.20%

 

When you get to a late situation - something like 2nd and 3rd and 2 out ... that final out protecting a 1 run lead is worth almost a 16% increase in the expected win% - more crucial than any of the 9th inning situations during that game. It is mystifying how many managers are squeamish about using your best pitcher then.

[Bellhorn04]

Here are the top 10 alltime in saves. But I am ranking them by save %.

 

1. Rivera 643/721 89.2%

2. Hoffman 601/677 88.8%

3. Percival 358/415 86.3%

4. Wagner 422/491 85.9%

5. R. Myers 347/407 85.3%

6. Eckersley 390/461 84.6%

7. L. Smith 478/581 82.3%

8. Franco 424/525 80.8%

9. Reardon 367/473 77.6%

10. Fingers 341/452 75.4%

 

Papelbon is at 277/316 87.7%

[Bellhorn04]

Well, here is some research done on win expectancy given a situation http://www.hardballtimes.com/thtstats/other/wpa_inquirer.php that can say some things about closers and what is a key situation:

 

If you take the numbers based on how average teams do - basically you take a 1 run lead into the 9th inning without baserunners - the Win Probability is 88.03% basically need to cash in 9 out 10 of these sorts of games to be doing your job as a closer. A 2-run lead, the probabilty goes to 95.27% - in other words, you'd want your closer to be able to nail down 19 of 20 of these. (note the win prob goes down if you are the road team as there is no chance to come back from a blown lead). A 3-run lead, the probability goes to 98.07%, basically 49 out of 50 save chances. If a closer has an equal number of those sorts of games, you are looking at 94% being sort of the required number, a bit less than 19/20 in save chances to be doing a "good job". Obviously the percentages go up based on outs as well, if you have one out to get with the bases empty and a 1 run lead, it becomes 97.34% (basically 30 of 31 chances).

 

What is interesting is the four out save ... if a reliever comes in with a 1 run lead with 2 gone in the 8th, here are some win probs:

 

runner at 1st: 84.93%

runner at 2nd: 82.12%

runner at 3rd: 81.23%

1st and 2nd: 80.12%

1st and 3rd: 78.57%

2nd and 3rd: 75.02%

bases loaded: 72.40%

 

2nd and 3rd in a tie game?: 47.20%

 

When you get to a late situation - something like 2nd and 3rd and 2 out ... that final out protecting a 1 run lead is worth almost a 16% increase in the expected win% - more crucial than any of the 9th inning situations during that game. It is mystifying how many managers are squeamish about using your best pitcher then.

 

Good analysis.

 

I suppose the typical manager would say 'Hell, yeah, I'd love to use my closer for 4, 5 and 6 out saves all the time but I'm afraid I'd burn him to a crisp.'

 

One other piece of data that might be interesting is something like Papelbon's OPS against for Pitches 1-10, 11-20 and 21-25 etc., to see the effects of fatigue.

[jung]

But that suggests that the closer is automatically your best relief pitcher. He may not be your best pitcher. He may be the guy in your pen that has the best head for coming into a clean ninth inning and whipping through it but that might not mean he is your best relief pitcher. Seems to me that you need a fireman and you need a closer but that those two guys are not the same guy necessarily. Ueh is a great change of pace from almost anybody else out there before he comes in and is well capable of getting you three outs before the other team knows what hit it. Not sure that means i would have him come in to put out a fire unless I had no other options.

 

As for stints across a sit which is what we are really talking about...it can really burn a guy out. Their bodies are simply not used to giving a max physical effort and then coming out after a sit to continue a max physical effort. Conversely they can't pace themselves banking that the manager is going to have them come out after sitting across the half inning.

 

It eventually killed Paps in 2011 when you could literally see his fuel tank go to total empty when it finally happened to him. Too many multiple inning stints or I should say sits between max efforts killed him that year and we literally watched him die on the mound. He finally gave up the ghost in the home stand before the final trip of the year and was toast for what remained of that year. Still pitched out the year and got blamed for the mess in Baltimore. However his last meaningful pitch was thrown long before that during the home stand that preceded the Baltimore series.

Edited August 15, 2013 by jung

[Dojji]

Seems to me that you need a fireman and you need a closer but that those two guys are not the same guy necessarily.

 

Bingo. This whole closer v relief ace debate is a waste of everyone's time. You need both. If you only have one dependable pitcher, it doesn't matter one jot which one of those two necessary bullpen roles you neglect. The other one will kill you.

 

If yoiu want to talk about using the closer for 5 or 6 out saves all the time, that's in direct defiance of the system established in the modern era, that calls that kind of workload 2 pitchers' worth of relief innings, or nearly so. Ask Alfredo Aceves what happens when you ask a reliever to do that many innings out of the pen in a given year. While you're at it, ask Manny Delcarmen and Ramon Ramirez -- we were convinced we were set up for a long time after those two young righthanders both proved capable of doing 70+ innings in 09 -- and we were very wrong.

 

That system exists for a reason, both to maximize relief innings, and to minimize risk. And also because managers know that they can manage the personalities on the team if they handle the pen that way, which is a variable that one cannot exactly calculate into a spreadsheet, but is nonetheless highly important for relief in particular.

 

If you want to make some oversimplified assumtpions and presume that you can dictate baseball to everyone who's spent the last 30 years actually playing it, feel free to be that arrogant I guess. But every time a team has tried the whole relief ace model and stuck a scrub in at closer, they've paid for it in blood, and every time someone's overextended their closer the way you describe, they've wound up with a new closer sooner than they wanted to -- so take that back to your drawing table and figure out how to work it into the equation.

Edited August 15, 2013 by Dojji

[SCM33]

Saves are a weird made up stat which do not really help with identifying good relievers. But arbitration pays for them and so does free agency, so we are stuck with a lot of 1 inning closers being overpaid for a very very narrow job description.

 

I like this comment. Well said.

[jung]

Saves are a weird made up stat which do not really help with identifying good relievers. But arbitration pays for them and so does free agency, so we are stuck with a lot of 1 inning closers being overpaid for a very very narrow job description.

 

I like this comment. Well said.

 

I have said it before it is worth saying here. This is all a plot by the PA. They invent this s*** to pump salaries. I swear there is a back room at PA Headquarters where guys are lined up row upon row just thinking up new definitions for simple s*** that has to happen during the course of a game and numbers to quantify them. Things like "elite set up man". What an utter and complete load of ******** that one is. Or "quality start". Another complete load of ********.

 

Elite set up man should be, "failed starter, guy who could not cut the mustard looking for a job". Quality start should be, "actually looked pretty good for 5 innings before he got his clock cleaned".

[Palodios]

I always argue the point... At the end of a player's career, career save numbers, and save percentages matter significantly more than they do season-by-season. Anyone can get lucky for a season, but only quality players can do it for their career.

[sk7326]

I have said it before it is worth saying here. This is all a plot by the PA. They invent this s*** to pump salaries. I swear there is a back room at PA Headquarters where guys are lined up row upon row just thinking up new definitions for simple s*** that has to happen during the course of a game and numbers to quantify them. Things like "elite set up man". What an utter and complete load of ******** that one is. Or "quality start". Another complete load of ********.

 

Elite set up man should be, "failed starter, guy who could not cut the mustard looking for a job". Quality start should be, "actually looked pretty good for 5 innings before he got his clock cleaned".

 

Saves were invented by a writer ... Jerome Holtzman ... has no real basis in anything else

[sk7326]

But that suggests that the closer is automatically your best relief pitcher. He may not be your best pitcher. He may be the guy in your pen that has the best head for coming into a clean ninth inning and whipping through it but that might not mean he is your best relief pitcher. Seems to me that you need a fireman and you need a closer but that those two guys are not the same guy necessarily. Ueh is a great change of pace from almost anybody else out there before he comes in and is well capable of getting you three outs before the other team knows what hit it. Not sure that means i would have him come in to put out a fire unless I had no other options.

 

As for stints across a sit which is what we are really talking about...it can really burn a guy out. Their bodies are simply not used to giving a max physical effort and then coming out after a sit to continue a max physical effort. Conversely they can't pace themselves banking that the manager is going to have them come out after sitting across the half inning.

 

It eventually killed Paps in 2011 when you could literally see his fuel tank go to total empty when it finally happened to him. Too many multiple inning stints or I should say sits between max efforts killed him that year and we literally watched him die on the mound. He finally gave up the ghost in the home stand before the final trip of the year and was toast for what remained of that year. Still pitched out the year and got blamed for the mess in Baltimore. However his last meaningful pitch was thrown long before that during the home stand that preceded the Baltimore series.

 

But you are compensating the closer like he is your best reliever - so if he is not your best reliever, that is a problem. Indeed, I wouldn't even argue that the best reliever should finish the game - it's not so much the argument for the 5 out save happening more frequently, it's arguing for using Papelbon to get the game's most significant out and then move on to someone else to clean it up. The idea that a guy is the guy for the biggest situation but too big a slacker the rest of the time to work a 9th inning is counterintuitive.

[sk7326]

Bingo. This whole closer v relief ace debate is a waste of everyone's time. You need both. If you only have one dependable pitcher, it doesn't matter one jot which one of those two necessary bullpen roles you neglect. The other one will kill you.

 

If yoiu want to talk about using the closer for 5 or 6 out saves all the time, that's in direct defiance of the system established in the modern era, that calls that kind of workload 2 pitchers' worth of relief innings, or nearly so. Ask Alfredo Aceves what happens when you ask a reliever to do that many innings out of the pen in a given year. While you're at it, ask Manny Delcarmen and Ramon Ramirez -- we were convinced we were set up for a long time after those two young righthanders both proved capable of doing 70+ innings in 09 -- and we were very wrong.

 

That system exists for a reason, both to maximize relief innings, and to minimize risk. And also because managers know that they can manage the personalities on the team if they handle the pen that way, which is a variable that one cannot exactly calculate into a spreadsheet, but is nonetheless highly important for relief in particular.

 

If you want to make some oversimplified assumtpions and presume that you can dictate baseball to everyone who's spent the last 30 years actually playing it, feel free to be that arrogant I guess. But every time a team has tried the whole relief ace model and stuck a scrub in at closer, they've paid for it in blood, and every time someone's overextended their closer the way you describe, they've wound up with a new closer sooner than they wanted to -- so take that back to your drawing table and figure out how to work it into the equation.

 

Appeal to authority aside - I'm not dictating a new fangled form of baseball ... more likely musing about baseball from when we were kids, basic Earl Weaver stuff which still works. Now the days of the 100+ appearance by Kent Tekulve or Mike Marshall are clearly over. But the trends of modern bullpens, with 11-12 pitchers without anybody capable of multiple innings is a severe waste of personnel. There are 25 roster spots and you want to use them wisely - and extra pitchers because you are afraid of using your highest paid reliever in an actually stressful situation takes a potential pinch runner, or utility outfielder, or guy who only knows how to hit lefties from the manager's toolbox. Having guys who can actually work multiple innings (like 100 innings a year) would actually be a great benefit - that is separate from the closer discussion. It is tempting to think that the 9th inning is automatically the most important outs in the game. They often are not - and that's why you see so many teams get success just putting random guys into the slot.

 

I'm not even arguing 6 out saves - I'm arguing a much simpler case - if the setup guy does not do his job and creates a real problem ... using a couple of inferior guys just because you are afraid of using your closer for exactly the sort of high pressure situations that are needed - then what are you paying the closer for? To get 3 outs with the bases empty - lots of guys can do that for a lot cheaper than Papelbon.

[Bellhorn04]

Saves were invented by a writer ... Jerome Holtzman ... has no real basis in anything else

 

OK, but the save stat is no wonkier than the win stat for pitchers - maybe even less wonky.

[Orange Juiced]

There are all sorts of wonky and weird stats. Ultimately, the game is about scoring and preventing runs. The team that, at the end of the game, scores more - and, of course, thus prevents fewer - runs wins the game. Everything else is a means to that end. And therefore the only stat that truly "matters" is runs scored and runs allowed.

 

Of course, we are intensely interested in *how* those runs are scored and what events led to them being scored (or prevented). And so we want to catalogue everything that happens in a game and make up stats for all that.

 

That being said, the save and the "quality start" seem to be the most arbitrary and made-up of all the made-up stats that exist. I mean, take quality start. Rank these pitching lines by quality:

 

(1) 5 2/3 ip, 0 h, 0 r, 0 bb, 15 k (0.00 era, 0.00 whip, 23.8 k/9)

(2) 9 ip, 4 h, 4 r, 0 bb, 17 k (4.00 era, 0.44 whip, 17.0 k/9)

(3) 6 ip, 10 h, 3 r, 3 bb, 1 k (4.50 era, 2.17 whip, 1.5 k/9)

 

Hint: Only one of these is a "quality start".

 

Similarly, look at the save stat. Rank these three relief performances by quality:

 

(1) 4 ip, 0 h, 1 r, 0 bb, 10 k, BS (lost a 3-2 lead in the 6th on a pair of OF errors)

(2) 1 ip, 4 h, 2 r, 1 bb, 0 k, S (entered the 9th inheriting a 7-4 lead)

(3) 3 ip, 0 h, 0 r, 0 bb, 6 k (no save registered; inherited a 4-0 lead in the 7th, entering with bases loaded and nobody out; did not allow an inherited runner to score)

 

Only one of these performances gets a save, and yet it's the worst performance of the group.

[Bellhorn04]

100% true, OJ. Both of these stats really need refinement. Not elimination, but refinement.

 

Bill James's 'Game Score' for pitchers is, I think, a worthy innovation that should get more attention as time goes on.

[jung]

"Quality Start" should just go away. It is extraneous and will always be a subjective measure that means nothing compared to the real numbers. It is stupid.

[Bellhorn04]

"Quality Start" should just go away. It is extraneous and will always be a subjective measure that means nothing compared to the real numbers. It is stupid.

 

Maybe so. But the basic idea of tracking how many good starts a starter has had vs. bad starts is not without merit.

[Orange Juiced]

Maybe so. But the basic idea of tracking how many good starts a starter has had vs. bad starts is not without merit.

 

Agreed. But it's a totally subjective thing, and that makes for a bad stat.

[Bellhorn04]

Agreed. But it's a totally subjective thing, and that makes for a bad stat.

 

It'd be a simple matter to refine it. Something like:

 

6 IP, 2 ER

7 IP, 3 ER

9 IP, 4 ER

[Orange Juiced]

It'd be a simple matter to refine it. Something like:

 

6 IP, 2 ER

7 IP, 3 ER

9 IP, 4 ER

 

But it's still subjective.

[Bellhorn04]

But it's still subjective.

 

Yes, any definition would be subjective, as with stats like Win, Save and Hold. But it seems to me the main problem fans have with Quality Start is the 6 IP 3 ER minimum. They don't like a 4.50 ERA performance being credited as a QS. If you tighten it up a bit I think it would be more widely accepted.

[Orange Juiced]

Yes, any definition would be subjective, as with stats like Win, Save and Hold. But it seems to me the main problem fans have with Quality Start is the 6 IP 3 ER minimum. They don't like a 4.50 ERA performance being credited as a QS. If you tighten it up a bit I think it would be more widely accepted.

 

It's just that with this definition (and perhaps others we could devise), a *better* start would not qualify as "quality" while this one does. I agree with wins...it also doesn't really take into account the actual pitching performance. A 9 ip, 1 r loss is a better performance than a 5 ip, 7 r win. Maybe they should change the name from "quality" start to something else. At least "win" is a little more objective - it's not trying to tell you who pitched up to a certain standard...just who was the pitcher of record.

[Bellhorn04]

I think Bill James is on the right track with the Game Score for pitchers. I think we'll eventually see this used instead of Quality Starts.