The closer thread

[BigPapi]

"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.

 

I agree that 3 runs in 6 innings for a 4.50 era certainly does not seem very "quality" and it isn't, but if you actual look at it closely, you see that it actually is better than you think. If a starter can go 6 innings, then the bullpen only has to pitch 3 innings of relief , which ins't the greatest but certainly ain't bad. You just need your 7th inning man, set up man, and your closer to finish things off. Lastly, allowing 3 runs over six innings , more often than not, will keep your team still in legitimate contention for the win. I still think if they are going to call anything a "quality" start, it should be changed to 2 earned runs over at least six innings, but I would take a guy who let up 3 runs over 6 innings every time out there over someone like chris capuano, who pitches better than quality half his starts and shits the bed the other half. Basically, I think there is some accuracy to the quality start, but not a whole lot.

[mvp 78]

Pretty much. How many of those guys were around for more than 3 seasons compared to today? We have a better idea what needlessly destroys relievers arms today than we did 30 years ago, and our bullpen management (among other things) reflect the best available application of that knowledge. I'm sorry you find it personally disappointing guys, but it's not going back.

 

Nope, it's here to stay. I'm actually in favoe of increasing roster size, which could help bullpens from being overly taxed. I'd have a 14/14 rule where teams are allowed 14 positional players and 14 pitchers.

[Dojji]

What I'd do is divorce the lineup from positional play. Basically take the DH to its logical conclusion. A team puts its best fielders in each position and its best 9 hitters in the lineup. Guys that can more than one of these things would be extremely useful due to the limited roster space and defensive specialists get a boost. Thus you have maximum flexibility to use your roster space to the fullest and defensive baseball improves because you don't have to crowd hitters into wierd defensive positions..

[jung]

There is nothing wrong with the concept of closers. Paying them the way the PA would like them paid is stupid but there is nothing wrong with closers. Nothing wrong with set up men either. However there is tons wrong with the notion of "elite" set up men.

 

It is all a pile of bull crap designed to make us want what we don't have. "Oh gosh we have just got to have an elite set up man, regardless of what it costs". The PA grinds this s*** out of some back room at PA Headquarters hoping we lap it up.

[jad]

Of course 'the closer model' works. Because most of the time, the team with the closer is 1-3 runs ahead with less than an inning to play. That is like saying 'the prevent defense works more often than not'; well, yes, because you use it when you are ahead late in the game and your chances of winning are best.

 

Finally, on poor Calvin Shiraldi. Obviously, not a great pitcher, but without him, they would never have been in position to win or lose the WS. ALso, as I remember he was one pitch away from winning several times in that inning, and the 'hits' that beat him were ground balls through the hole that might just as well have been right at the SS. (May be wrong on this.)

[Dojji]

Of course 'the closer model' works. Because most of the time, the team with the closer is 1-3 runs ahead with less than an inning to play. That is like saying 'the prevent defense works more often than not'; well, yes, because you use it when you are ahead late in the game and your chances of winning are best.

 

Did you really think that wasn't factored in? That's why closers have to be more than 80% efficient in order to earn their money.

[sk7326]

However, this may be the equivalent of saying 'the days of the Nolan Ryan sort of starter are gone'. Part of it is the game has changed, but you also have to consider the possibility that guys like that are pretty rare physical specimens.

 

To a degree- those sorts of relievers are gone. At the same time, while it is possible this is the best application of knowledge, it could just as easily be groupthink. You don't think that you can get a 100 IP reliever anymore? What if they were 50, regularly scheduled 2 inning outings (like rotate 3 pitchers)? It's the same with the 4-man rotation - there is no evidence that a 5-man rotation really prevents injury, but there is a lot of risk aversion, which is unsurprising. These are the same forces that (for instance) in football make football coaches not go for it on 4th and short nearly enough. The problem is that the risk aversion has created all of these silly 1-inning sort of roles, and results in 11 or 12 man pitching staffs which make a team's bench unnecessarily thin.

 

The best example I tend to cite is Tim Lincecum in the postseason last year - it is pretty clear he is no longer a particularly good starter, but he could be dynamite as a 100 inning super-reliever. But you'd have to pay him enough to make it worth his while, a job without statistical glory but much more value than Fernando Rodney's saves.

[sk7326]

There is nothing wrong with the concept of closers. Paying them the way the PA would like them paid is stupid but there is nothing wrong with closers. Nothing wrong with set up men either. However there is tons wrong with the notion of "elite" set up men.

 

It is all a pile of bull crap designed to make us want what we don't have. "Oh gosh we have just got to have an elite set up man, regardless of what it costs". The PA grinds this s*** out of some back room at PA Headquarters hoping we lap it up.

 

The PA is happy for sure - it creates jobs. But really this is all groupthink from the Eckersley A's days. The A's ran an elite bullpen that way, it became the only way - regardless of whether it makes sense or not in general. And then you add fan pressure, explosion of sports radio etc etc etc.

[User Name]

What I'd do is divorce the lineup from positional play. Basically take the DH to its logical conclusion. A team puts its best fielders in each position and its best 9 hitters in the lineup. Guys that can more than one of these things would be extremely useful due to the limited roster space and defensive specialists get a boost. Thus you have maximum flexibility to use your roster space to the fullest and defensive baseball improves because you don't have to crowd hitters into wierd defensive positions..

 

This is a terrible idea, and would allow the disparity between baseball's big-market and small-market teams to grow bigger.

[Youk Of The Nation]

What I'd do is divorce the lineup from positional play. Basically take the DH to its logical conclusion. A team puts its best fielders in each position and its best 9 hitters in the lineup. Guys that can more than one of these things would be extremely useful due to the limited roster space and defensive specialists get a boost. Thus you have maximum flexibility to use your roster space to the fullest and defensive baseball improves because you don't have to crowd hitters into wierd defensive positions..

 

I want to preface my statement with this: I am not trying to insult you or call you stupid, or anything like that. This is not a personal attack. That said, this might be the dumbest individual idea anyone has proposed on this site since adam asked to be made a moderator.

[a700hitter]

What I'd do is divorce the lineup from positional play. Basically take the DH to its logical conclusion. A team puts its best fielders in each position and its best 9 hitters in the lineup. Guys that can more than one of these things would be extremely useful due to the limited roster space and defensive specialists get a boost. Thus you have maximum flexibility to use your roster space to the fullest and defensive baseball improves because you don't have to crowd hitters into wierd defensive positions..

What roster size would be needed to accommodate this?

[rjortiz]

What roster size would be needed to accommodate this?

 

Probably 30-31.

 

9 Olympic sprinters as fielders

9 DH's

12-13 pitchers

[mvp 78]

Dojji, it's definitely out of the box thinking. You'd be running it more like an NFL team with an offense and a defense.

 

However, I agree with UN that it would give high spending clubs too much of an advantage.

[Behindenemylines]

Probably 30-31.

 

9 Olympic sprinters as fielders

9 DH's

12-13 pitchers

 

Part of what makes baseball enjoyable is a team being able to field a team with a 25 man roster that can be successful in enough of each area that they beat other teams and win more games. Finding players that give you offensive, but yet help you in the field. Though I think the DH should be in both leagues, (No one wants to see the pitcher hit) I think one is enough. If baseball does anything it should change the way rosters expand in September. I agree with being able to bring up players to help, but I think a team should have to pick which 25 players from that group are available each day. That group may change from day to day, but will still be 25 on any given day.

[Bellhorn04]

Keeping the roster at 25 puts some challenge in things for the manager. I wouldn't touch that rule at all.

 

I think baseball is a game that functions beautifully as it is and shouldn't be messed with.

[Behindenemylines]

Keeping the roster at 25 puts some challenge in things for the manager. I wouldn't touch that rule at all.

 

I think baseball is a game that functions beautifully as it is and shouldn't be messed with.

 

Don't you think the expansion of rosters in September changes how the game is played? If you have 5 lefties and 5 righties in the pen it changes the managers approach to the game. There are more pitching changes, making the games longer in theory. I'm not saying teams can't expand their rosters in September, its that they have to designate which 25 they are using each day. That 25 would change day to day, but removes a teams ability to have 5 or 6 lefties in the bullpen or other things that you don't see in baseball from April to August.

[Bellhorn04]

I haven't give enough thought to the September roster rules to have an opinion on that.

 

I'm generally opposed to rule changes in baseball, with the exception of replay reviews.

[User Name]

I don't get the issue with the expanding roster. It's the same for every team, so there's no unfair advantage. Besides, most of those roster add-ons are minor league kids getting their feet wet at the ML level.

[jung]

Ueh with another terrific performance last night.

 

At some point this season, opponents are going to change the script on Ueh. He is just enjoying too much success and I would be surprised if teams are just going to allow him to put them to sleep every 9th inning once we get to post season play...maybe sooner.

 

Ueh does not throw as many pitches in the zone as he is getting guys to swing and miss. At some point, managers are going to look at the likely percentage of pitches that would not really be called strikes and force their hitters to take. If they force Ueh to come up in the zone, that might really be his Achilles heel. Nobody has forced him to pitch up all season. Many of his pitches are borderline for sure and such a strategy may not work. His control may well be good enough that he can keep away from the belt line. Hitters starting to take may get them ahead in counts as a result. Nothing else opponents have used has worked and that is why I suspect we will see teams starting to take on him to see if they can force him to try to work up in the zone. 89 mph may well look a heck of a lot easier to hit at the belt line especially if Ueh is forced away from the splitter.

 

The last thing I expect, especially in post season play will be for teams to say "well Ueh just makes us hack away at pitches that are borderline strikes or would just plain be balls if we did not swing....So lets just keep hackin' away". Don't think that is going to happen.

[sk7326]

What is fascinating about Uehara is that his fastball is very ordinary - decent velocity, arrow straight. But he locates it very well - he gets ahead by hitting the black with the fastball. The other thing is that his splitter is very very odd among the world of splitters in that it doesn't have a ton of movement. It moves, but more subtly and often stays in the zone (Rod Beck's splitter for instance - was much more the norm). He is pounding the strike zone to such a degree that grinding the at-bats out is very hard. He is getting a lot of swing and miss for sure - but he is around the strike zone with all his pitches, I am not sure the hitters can take a chance on taking some of those pitches. The game plan to get him might actually be counter to your suggestion - sit dead red and go for the first good fastball you see. It's almost always going to be a strike, and it's almost always a hittable speed.

 

Basically Uehara is dominating closing as a sort of lower middle class version of mid 90s Greg Maddux - it's fun to watch.

[Bellhorn04]

What is fascinating about Uehara is that his fastball is very ordinary - decent velocity, arrow straight. But he locates it very well - he gets ahead by hitting the black with the fastball.

 

Keith Foulke's fastball was also very ordinary, right? But he could hit the corners with it, and his changeup was outstanding.

 

One of the scariest moments of my Red Sox life was Foulke pitching the bottom of the 9th in Game 6 of the 2004 ALCS. I still don't know how he got through that.

[sk7326]

Keith Foulke's fastball was also very ordinary, right? But he could hit the corners with it, and his changeup was outstanding.

 

One of the scariest moments of my Red Sox life was Foulke pitching the bottom of the 9th in Game 6 of the 2004 ALCS. I still don't know how he got through that.

 

Foulke's had a bit more movement ... but yes it sets up the other stuff and Foulke's changeup was ++, and his durability was crazy. The big revelation with Uehara has been usage - nobody was sure he could actually answer the bell this regularly.

[mvp 78]

I believe he threw a 4 seamer and a 2 seamer, but had an outstanding circle change. It helped to keep hitters off balance.

[User Name]

Keith Foulke's fastball was also very ordinary, right? But he could hit the corners with it, and his changeup was outstanding.

 

One of the scariest moments of my Red Sox life was Foulke pitching the bottom of the 9th in Game 6 of the 2004 ALCS. I still don't know how he got through that.

 

Trevor Hoffman.

[rjortiz]

Keith Foulke's fastball was also very ordinary, right? But he could hit the corners with it, and his changeup was outstanding.

 

One of the scariest moments of my Red Sox life was Foulke pitching the bottom of the 9th in Game 6 of the 2004 ALCS. I still don't know how he got through that.

 

Pitching to Ruben Sierra and Tony Clark helps a lot.

[jung]

What is fascinating about Uehara is that his fastball is very ordinary - decent velocity, arrow straight. But he locates it very well - he gets ahead by hitting the black with the fastball. The other thing is that his splitter is very very odd among the world of splitters in that it doesn't have a ton of movement. It moves, but more subtly and often stays in the zone (Rod Beck's splitter for instance - was much more the norm). He is pounding the strike zone to such a degree that grinding the at-bats out is very hard. He is getting a lot of swing and miss for sure - but he is around the strike zone with all his pitches, I am not sure the hitters can take a chance on taking some of those pitches. The game plan to get him might actually be counter to your suggestion - sit dead red and go for the first good fastball you see. It's almost always going to be a strike, and it's almost always a hittable speed.

 

Basically Uehara is dominating closing as a sort of lower middle class version of mid 90s Greg Maddux - it's fun to watch.

 

Seems to me that they are already hackin' at 0-0. So I think if anything hitters are already swinging almost as much as they can swing at Ueh.

 

Up is the one thing Ueh has not been all season which is why I suspect the one thing left to try is to see if they can get him to give in a little and get that thing up in the zone a bit more. Not only may it not work...Ueh may not even give in. But truthfully I think that is all that there is left to try against him.

[sk7326]

Seems to me that they are already hackin' at 0-0. So I think if anything hitters are already swinging almost as much as they can swing at Ueh.

 

Up is the one thing Ueh has not been all season which is why I suspect the one thing left to try is to see if they can get him to give in a little and get that thing up in the zone a bit more. Not only may it not work...Ueh may not even give in. But truthfully I think that is all that there is left to try against him.

 

What is interesting about it is that Koji's history has been very much a fly ball pitcher ... and he has had a homerun problem as a reliever holding him back from amazingness ... he is still more flyball pitcher than a groundball one, but the solid contact has been far far less.

[sk7326]

Seems to me that they are already hackin' at 0-0. So I think if anything hitters are already swinging almost as much as they can swing at Ueh.

 

Up is the one thing Ueh has not been all season which is why I suspect the one thing left to try is to see if they can get him to give in a little and get that thing up in the zone a bit more. Not only may it not work...Ueh may not even give in. But truthfully I think that is all that there is left to try against him.

 

What is interesting about it is that Koji's history has been very much a fly ball pitcher ... and he has had a homerun problem as a reliever holding him back from amazingness ... he is still more flyball pitcher than a groundball one, but the solid contact has been far far less.

 

http://www.fangraphs.com/statss.aspx?playerid=9227&position=P

[Bellhorn04]

Kimbrel's probably the best closer in baseball over the last few years. But the last time he pitched more than 1.1 innings was early in 2011. You'd think last night would have been the time to try to get 6 outs from him. But they didn't, and now their season's over.

[a700hitter]

Kimbrel's probably the best closer in baseball over the last few years. But the last time he pitched more than 1.1 innings was early in 2011. You'd think last night would have been the time to try to get 6 outs from him. But they didn't, and now their season's over.

With a travel day on Thursday and facing elimination, it was ridiculously stupid to have a turd like Carpenter on the mound.