Dave Dombrowski

[Spudboy]

no one else even comes close, and having that hammer at the end of their bullpen was a main reason why the yankees consistently went deep into october. Lock down closers make a difference, and you don't dumpster dive for one when you have a $240 million payroll.

 

a boom!

[dgalehouse]

When you have the best team in baseball , the average fan tends to praise the GM. When you finish last in consecutive years , the average fan tends to slam the GM. But the deep thinker does just the opposite. The deep thinker doesn't like it when reality goes opposite to their view of how things should be. The deep thinker always has a better plan.

[Dojji]

Near as I understand it, the logic is that since no closer is perfect, buy the cheapest imperfect closer possible. No consideration given to the value of stop-loss, opportunity cost, or the need for optimum performance in high leverage situations.

 

No, because performance can not be perfect, there's apparently no need to invest resources to optimize it.

 

Can you imagine that logic being applied to ANY other baseball role? Because hitters can't bat 1.000 we should invest in McNoodlebat players for 500,000 each? That'll look good in the pocket book. Not so much from the stand.

 

Because starters can't pitch an ERA of 0, no need to invest in an ace? Run a rotation of AAAA guys for maximum savings!

 

Does that make any sense to anyone here?

 

Then why apply that exact same logic to the closer's role?

[Dojji]

When you have the best team in baseball , the average fan tends to praise the GM. When you finish last in consecutive years , the average fan tends to slam the GM. But the deep thinker does just the opposite. The deep thinker doesn't like it when reality goes opposite to their view of how things should be. The deep thinker always has a better plan.

 

Sometimes the deep thinker drowns in his own smug self-superiority too.

 

I'd rather think objectively, with an eye on both sides of the argument, then focus on being "deep" for its own sake.

[a700hitter]

When you have the best team in baseball , the average fan tends to praise the GM. When you finish last in consecutive years , the average fan tends to slam the GM. But the deep thinker does just the opposite. The deep thinker doesn't like it when reality goes opposite to their view of how things should be. The deep thinker always has a better plan.

I think you are onto something. All along I thought it was cognitive dissonance, but I think you nailed it. Deep thinking.

[a700hitter]

Near as I understand it, the logic is that since no closer is perfect, buy the cheapest imperfect closer possible. No consideration given to the value of stop-loss, opportunity cost, or the need for optimum performance in high leverage situations.

 

No, because performance can not be perfect, there's apparently no need to invest resources to optimize it.

 

Can you imagine that logic being applied to ANY other baseball role? Because hitters can't bat 1.000 we should invest in McNoodlebat players for 500,000 each? That'll look good in the pocket book. Not so much from the stand.

 

Because starters can't pitch an ERA of 0, no need to invest in an ace? Run a rotation of AAAA guys for maximum savings!

 

Does that make any sense to anyone here?

 

Then why apply that exact same logic to the closer's role?

There is nothing more demoralizing for a team or its fans than for the team to fight for 8 innings and hand the closer a lead and then lose the game. People value it differently. I just think it is silly to run up almost a quarter of a billion in annual payroll and look for a Dollar Store closer. It just doesn’t make sense to me.

[Kimmi]

Sure, just follow Ben's approach with Bailey/Hanrahan/Melancon/Koji. 'If at first you don't succeed, try, try again!' It's more fun that way.

 

Well, believe it or not, that's my general philosophy for building a good pen.

 

Those elite relievers often come from places unexpectedly. Assemble as many good arms as you can and see who rises to the top.

 

Also, in fairness to Ben, Bailey, Hanrahan, and Melancon were all better than how they pitched for us in 2013.

[Kimmi]

He sure did. And a certain clinching opportunity in 2004 as well.

 

Overall his postseason numbers were absolutely insane though. A 0.70 ERA and a .76 WHIP in 141 innings.

 

The point is that a very good closer is going to get the job done the vast majority of the time.

 

And they are all going to blow a game here and there. Sometimes even the biggest games.

 

You can get that production for cheaper than $15 mil a year.

[dgalehouse]

Sometimes the deep thinker drowns in his own smug self-superiority too.

 

I'd rather think objectively, with an eye on both sides of the argument, then focus on being "deep" for its own sake.

 

Smug self-superiority is one of the hallmarks of the deep thinker.

[Dojji]

The point is that a very good closer is going to get the job done the vast majority of the time.

 

And they are all going to blow a game here and there. Sometimes even the biggest games.

 

You can get that production for cheaper than $15 mil a year.

 

This is exactly the logical fallacy I've been trying to call out.

"Because closers are all fallible, there's no difference between one fallible closer and another and there's no risk difference in having a cheap, extremely fallible closer over an expensive, somewhat fallible closer."

 

This could not possibly be more wrong.

 

We would have made the World Series in 2003 if we had had a trustworthy bullpen to turn the game over to in Game 7. It was the SEVERE undependability of our bullpen and the tenuous nature of our closing situation in the 2003 playoffs that tempted Grady Little into his fatal mistake.

 

And yet the 2003 playoff bullpen model is the one you're proposing to emulate. Even though we've ONLY EVER WON WORLD SERIES WITH QUALITY CLOSERS.

 

2004: Foulke, specifically acquired to close in the wake of the 2003 disaster

2007 Papelbon, probably the best closer we ever had

2013: getting SUPER DUPER LUCKY with Koji stepping into the role despite his age

 

THAT is the opportunity cost in going cheap on the closer's role.

Edited August 8, 2018 by Dojji

[Kimmi]

Which goes to illustrate that literally no closer is perfect. If the best there ever will be blew multiple must win games over his extremely long career, we probably shouldn't ask *more* than that of the closer du jour, or act all outraged when a blown save happens

 

You are the one who brought up the thing about the closer blowing Game 7.

[Kimmi]

On the flip side of that, signing Keith Foulke worked out pretty good.

 

There are never any guarantees no matter what you do.

 

Yes, for one year. Which got us a ring, so it was worth it.

 

But look at what happened the two years following that.

[Kimmi]

Near as I understand it, the logic is that since no closer is perfect, buy the cheapest imperfect closer possible. No consideration given to the value of stop-loss, opportunity cost, or the need for optimum performance in high leverage situations.

 

No, because performance can not be perfect, there's apparently no need to invest resources to optimize it.

 

Can you imagine that logic being applied to ANY other baseball role? Because hitters can't bat 1.000 we should invest in McNoodlebat players for 500,000 each? That'll look good in the pocket book. Not so much from the stand.

 

Because starters can't pitch an ERA of 0, no need to invest in an ace? Run a rotation of AAAA guys for maximum savings!

 

Does that make any sense to anyone here?

 

Then why apply that exact same logic to the closer's role?

 

You are not even close to what I am saying Dojji.

 

Come on, you're better than this.

[Kimmi]

This is exactly the logical fallacy I've been trying to call out.

"Because closers are all fallible, there's no difference between one fallible closer and another and there's no risk difference in having a cheap, extremely fallible closer over an expensive, somewhat fallible closer."

 

This could not possibly be more wrong.

 

We would have made the World Series in 2003 if we had had a trustworthy bullpen to turn the game over to in Game 7. It was the SEVERE undependability of our bullpen and the tenuous nature of our closing situation in the 2003 playoffs that tempted Grady Little into his fatal mistake.

 

And yet the 2003 playoff bullpen model is the one you're proposing to emulate. Even though we've ONLY EVER WON WORLD SERIES WITH QUALITY CLOSERS.

 

2004: Foulke, specifically acquired to close in the wake of the 2003 disaster

2007 Papelbon, probably the best closer we ever had

2013: getting SUPER DUPER LUCKY with Koji stepping into the role despite his age

 

THAT is the opportunity cost in going cheap on the closer's role.

 

Once again, I am not saying to get a closer that is no good or one that will fail regularly.

 

Let me rephrase what I said earlier. You can get a closer as good as Kimbrel for much cheaper.

[Kimmi]

When you have the best team in baseball , the average fan tends to praise the GM. When you finish last in consecutive years , the average fan tends to slam the GM. But the deep thinker does just the opposite. The deep thinker doesn't like it when reality goes opposite to their view of how things should be. The deep thinker always has a better plan.

 

Smug self-superiority is one of the hallmarks of the deep thinker.

 

These are the types of posts that people make when they know the other person has a valid point.

[Dojji]

You are not even close to what I am saying Dojji.

 

Come on, you're better than this.

 

I think you're better than this, Kimmi. You're dismissing an unquantifyable value simply because it can't be quantified, and engaging in an absurd chain of nonlogic.

 

You're basically talking about taking a very expensive car, with all the best parts money can buy, best engine, best tires, best drive train, and then using a Chinese knockoff set of brakepads on it. I mean, sure, that's PROBABLY not going to bite you in the ass in any one trip to the grocery store, but it's not exactly the first area I'd decide to cheap out in!

[Jack Flap]

Sure, just follow Ben's approach with Bailey/Hanrahan/Melancon/Koji. 'If at first you don't succeed, try, try again!' It's more fun that way.

 

The funny thing is that Bailey and Hanrahan were All-Star caliber closers before we traded for them. Both had their warts and wouldn't be confused with Craig Kimbrel at top form, but it's not like Cherington was trying to throw any old s*** out there and hoping it worked out (which is the way some are making it sound). Those acquisitions failed primarily due to injuries.

Edited August 8, 2018 by Jack Flap

[a700hitter]

Well, believe it or not, that's my general philosophy for building a good pen.

 

Those elite relievers often come from places unexpectedly. Assemble as many good arms as you can and see who rises to the top.

 

Also, in fairness to Ben, Bailey, Hanrahan, and Melancon were all better than how they pitched for us in 2013.

In fairness, if Bailey and Hanrahan had been worse than they were in 2013, they never would have made AAA. Hanrahan pitches in 9 games and never appeared in another MLB game. My favorite was Bobby Jenks. He was in 2011. Theo spent $12 million on him and got 15 innings, 0 Saves and a 6.32 ERA. He is my favorite, because I was at Yankee Stadium for his quasi-last appearance. He got winded running in from the bullpen and then he looked like he was going to vomit after his 5th warmup toss, because the fat slob was hyperventilating. That was the last time he made it to a major league mound.

[Kimmi]

I think you're better than this, Kimmi. You're dismissing an unquantifyable value simply because it can't be quantified, and engaging in an absurd chain of nonlogic.

 

You're basically talking about taking a very expensive car, with all the best parts money can buy, best engine, best tires, best drive train, and then using a Chinese knockoff set of brakepads on it. I mean, sure, that's PROBABLY not going to bite you in the ass in any one trip to the grocery store, but it's not exactly the first area I'd decide to cheap out in!

 

I'm not dismissing anything.

 

You are hung up on my statement in which I said we can get almost the same production as we are getting from Kimbrel.

 

I have since rephrased. We can get the same production with a less expensive closer.

[a700hitter]

I'm not dismissing anything.

 

You are hung up on my statement in which I said we can get almost the same production as we are getting from Kimbrel.

 

I have since rephrased. We can get the same production with a less expensive closer.

No, you can’t.

[cp176]

Multiple ways of looking at things I guess I see here. I like the path the Red Sox have chosen to travel. I believe that they will continue to move along in the right direction. It certainly isn't a discussion that says anything about anyone who thinks they might have a deeper thought process than someone else. I think that it is unique that anyone can vehemently disagree and sound like they might dislike the way a team does business and still be a true fan of that franchise. Understand that I am not saying they aren't fans just that it seems unusual to me. It is one thing to criticize play on the field and management decisions day to day, but to constantly question the overall direction the team is and has been going in?

[Dojji]

I'm not dismissing anything.

 

You are hung up on my statement in which I said we can get almost the same production as we are getting from Kimbrel.

 

I have since rephrased. We can get the same production with a less expensive closer.

 

But not *consistently.* It's not like we're not planning on competing next year or the years after that, Kimmi.

 

You can get performance on the cheap if you're lucky. If you're really lucky you can even dredge up a guy like Koji who can close effectively on the cheap for multiple seasons.

 

But if you want consistency, you're eventually going to have to pay for it. There's only a few consistently good closers in baseball and they are in HIGH demand.

 

And finding that consistent closer is the hallmark of a perennial contender.

 

The less you're willing to pay for a good closer, the more times you'll have to start over again from square one trying to find a good one. That's what letting Papelbon go *should* have taught us. Looks like we have a few slow learners in the group.

 

If putting a cost limit on your closer limits your ability to find a consistent high performance player for the role (and it does) then why do it? Makes no sense to me. It's too important to the momentum of the team, and for securing high leverage wins, to be the area I go cheap on

Edited August 8, 2018 by Dojji

[a700hitter]

The goal posts are moving this morning for the “closers are overvalued” argument. Edited August 8, 2018 by a700hitter

[moonslav59]

Maybe because Kimbrel is looking sketchy, of late.

[Dojji]

The goal posts are moving this morning for the “closers are overvalued” argument.

 

We need GPS. I'm not sure we're in the same county anymore.

 

Kimmi is clinging gamely onto this idea that you can get the same production we're gettihg right now for Kimbrel, consistently, for less than we paid for him. I have no idea why she's so sure of this because she's admitted as such that closers have a kind of value that's difficult to properly quantify, AND that Kimbrel is among the very best in the business, which means that there aren't a lot of relief pitchers who can consistently replicate his value at all, and of the ones that are, how many of those are even acquirable from their current teams, much less more affordable than Kimbrel?

 

Frankly, I honestly think Kimmi's holding onto this argument more because of her staunch defense of Ben Cherington (and resulting downplaying of DD's moves) than because she actually believes this argument she's making. She can speak for herself, but I strongly suspect the overall position Kimmi's taking here is a lot less "I actually believe this on its merits" and a lot more "I feel like I should take this position because of my overall opposition against DD's high leverage trades in the 2016 and 2017offseasons."

[SoxnCycles]

This is exactly the logical fallacy I've been trying to call out.

"Because closers are all fallible, there's no difference between one fallible closer and another and there's no risk difference in having a cheap, extremely fallible closer over an expensive, somewhat fallible closer."

 

This could not possibly be more wrong.

 

We would have made the World Series in 2003 if we had had a trustworthy bullpen to turn the game over to in Game 7. It was the SEVERE undependability of our bullpen and the tenuous nature of our closing situation in the 2003 playoffs that tempted Grady Little into his fatal mistake.

 

And yet the 2003 playoff bullpen model is the one you're proposing to emulate. Even though we've ONLY EVER WON WORLD SERIES WITH QUALITY CLOSERS.

 

2004: Foulke, specifically acquired to close in the wake of the 2003 disaster

2007 Papelbon, probably the best closer we ever had

2013: getting SUPER DUPER LUCKY with Koji stepping into the role despite his age

 

THAT is the opportunity cost in going cheap on the closer's role.

 

Wrong, the Sox bullpen, and particularly Timlin and Embree were very good in the postseason, which is why Grady's decision cost him his job.

Timlin gave up 0 earned runs in 9.2 innings that fall.

Embree gave up 0 earned runs in 6.2 innings in that post season.

Scott Williamson gave up 1 earned run in 8 innings.

 

Try thinking a little deeper.

[jacksonianmarch]

The goal posts are moving this morning for the “closers are overvalued” argument.

 

Closers are overvalued. Elite closers are not. The problem is there are a few elite closers yet all the guys on the second tier want to be paid like the best, and that second tier is where you see a lot of flameouts

[a700hitter]

Closers are overvalued. Elite closers are not. The problem is there are a few elite closers yet all the guys on the second tier want to be paid like the best, and that second tier is where you see a lot of flameouts

Agreed.

[moonslav59]

Closers are overvalued. Elite closers are not. The problem is there are a few elite closers yet all the guys on the second tier want to be paid like the best, and that second tier is where you see a lot of flameouts

 

How many times do elite closers fail? (Rivera, especially later in his career, Kimbrel, etc...) 1 out of 10 maybe?

 

How about very good but not elite (and cheaper) closers? 1 out of 8 or 9?

 

I think this is what Kimmi means by close or almost the same.

[Dojji]

Maybe because Kimbrel is looking sketchy, of late.

 

he had 2 bad games this week. Last night he gave a solo HR to a good hitter. If that's the worst we see from Kimbrel, we're doing pretty well out of all this.