And the off season begins (2018-19)

[Kimmi]

It is a bit unusual for a bad closer to have 39 saves . To say the least . I wouldn't want to count on that . Aroldis Chapman has never had a season with as many as 39 saves . Kenly Jansen and Blake Treinen each had 38 this season. You are not exactly helping your case by using a hypothetical and extremely unlikely example such as that .

 

Well that depends on how many save opportunities a team has. The Sox had more opportunities than most other teams had.

 

Kimbrel had 42 saves in 47 chances, which is an 89.4% success rate.

 

A bad closer having 39 saves in those same 47 chances would have an 83% success rate. That sounds about right to me for a 'bad' closer.

[Kimmi]

Absolutely not kidding, just pointing out the fallacy of WAR in the case of Craig Kimbrel.

 

The Sox won their division by 8 games. Kimbrel was worth 2.3 bWins Above a Replacement level closer.

 

If you think Kimbrel was only responsible for 2.8 more wins than a replacement level closer (that's a pitcher with a WAR of 0.0) I don't know what to tell you.

 

I 100% sincerely believe that we would have still won the division with a replacement level closer.

 

But here's the thing. When a closer has to be replaced, he is not going to be replaced by a replacement level player. He is going to be replaced by the 8th inning guy, with the 8th inning guy being replaced by the 7th inning guy, etc. In reality, you are replacing your #7 pen guy with a replacement level player, which makes it pretty much a wash.

 

This is one of the reasons why replacement level for a closer is so low.

[Jack Flap]

I'm not sure I follow what this closer argument is even about anymore, and I guess it depends on how you'd define a "bad closer," but just about every year you can find a guy who saved 35+ games with an ERA around 4. Some around here seem to think that only the very best of the best are capable of closing games, but it isn't that difficult to rack up saves while being far less than lights-out.

 

I've just never really bought the idea that it takes some special or rare talent to record three outs with a three-run lead...which is one of the reasons I wouldn't mind Cora moving to a more progressive approach where you're willing to use your best reliever in the highest leverage situation (whether that be in the 9th, 8th, 7th, etc) without being a slave to the save statistic. I suspect from some of his past comments that Cora would be open to such an approach and would probably be capable of working wonders with it.

[dgalehouse]

I'm not sure I follow what this closer argument is even about anymore, and I guess it depends on how you'd define a "bad closer," but just about every year you can find a guy who saved 35+ games with an ERA around 4. Some around here seem to think that only the very best of the best are capable of closing games, but it isn't that difficult to rack up saves while being far less than lights-out.

 

I've just never really bought the idea that it takes some special or rare talent to record three outs with a three-run lead...which is one of the reasons I wouldn't mind Cora moving to a more progressive approach where you're willing to use your best reliever in the highest leverage situation (whether that be in the 9th, 8th, 7th, etc) without being a slave to the save statistic. I suspect from some of his past comments that Cora would be open to such an approach and would probably be capable of working wonders with it.

 

Any reliever can get three outs with a three run lead . Why pay for a top closer ? Any triple A slugger can hammer a meatball. Why pay J.D. Martinez to DH ? Any high school kid can catch a fly ball . Why pay JBJ to play center ? Any Red Sox board poster can be a great baseball executive. Why pay Dave Dombrowski ? The answer to all of these : Because you are looking for excellence. If you can find enough excellence , you will have a great team. Maybe a World champion.

Edited January 3, 2019 by dgalehouse

[notin]

I 100% sincerely believe that we would have still won the division with a replacement level closer.

 

But here's the thing. When a closer has to be replaced, he is not going to be replaced by a replacement level player. He is going to be replaced by the 8th inning guy, with the 8th inning guy being replaced by the 7th inning guy, etc. In reality, you are replacing your #7 pen guy with a replacement level player, which makes it pretty much a wash.

 

This is one of the reasons why replacement level for a closer is so low.

 

 

Let’s play bWAR as was proposed.

 

Last year the worst closer was Brad Boxberger with 8 blown saves (Kimberly had 5! A difference of 3! Mark Wohlers was right!) in 40 chances for an 80% success rate. Given the same 47 chances Kimbrel had, Boxberger would get 37.6 saves at his current conversion rate, or 4.4 saves less than Kimbrel.

 

Boxberger was valued at -0.7 bWAR, or 3.5 fewer wins than Kimbrel and his 2.8, putting bWAR values within 1 win.

 

Now not every blown save is a losss. If we assume one of Boxberger’s 4.4 extra blown saves is a win, the numbers match up.

[Jack Flap]

Any reliever can get three outs with a three run lead . Why pay for a top closer ? Any triple A slugger can hammer a meatball. Why pay J.D. Martinez? Any high school kid can catch a fly ball . Why pay JBJ to play center ? Any Red Sox board poster can be a great baseball executive. Why pay Dave Dombrowski ? The answer to all of these : Because you are looking for excellence. If you can find enough excellence , you will have a great team. Maybe a Word champion.

 

What a marvelous collection of straw man arguments in a single post...now that does require some talent.

 

Like I said...I'm not even sure what we're arguing here.

 

If it's whether the original Kimbrel trade was wise: I never loved the cost at the time, but it ultimately helped bring about a championship, so I have no cause to complain about it.

 

If it's whether Kimbrel should be re-signed for 2019 and beyond: given his warning signs of impending decline, and the proliferation of acceptable free agent alternatives, I'm fine with letting him go unless his asking price drops significantly. However, I have advocated spending money on further relief additions and opined that Robertson, Britton, Ottavino, and Herrera (several of whom have demonstrated the ability to get three outs with a three run lead) should be targets.

 

As far as I can tell, nowhere but in your imagination is anyone advocating signing Triple-A scrubs to pitch the 9th inning or hit in the middle of the lineup, but I'm glad you're on guard against such efforts. Keep up the good work!

[dgalehouse]

Let’s play bWAR as was proposed.

 

Last year the worst closer was Brad Boxberger with 8 blown saves (Kimberly had 5! A difference of 3! Mark Wohlers was right!) in 40 chances for an 80% success rate. Given the same 47 chances Kimbrel had, Boxberger would get 37.6 saves at his current conversion rate, or 4.4 saves less than Kimbrel.

 

Boxberger was valued at -0.7 bWAR, or 3.5 fewer wins than Kimbrel and his 2.8, putting bWAR values within 1 win.

 

Now not every blown save is a losss. If we assume one of Boxberger’s 4.4 extra blown saves is a win, the numbers match up.

 

Too much . This is why I have to get out of here . Absolutely ridiculous to think that the difference between a great closer and some mediocrity is just three saves . That could very possibly happen in just the first week . It's kind of like saying that the difference between a .300 hitter and a .200 hitter is just one lousy single in ten at bats. One can always find some statistical justification for nonsense . Mark Wohlers is a great example of having the mentality to be a closer. His confidence, career and almost his life were destroyed by one memorable blown save . And he could throw as hard as Aroldis Chapman .

[Jack Flap]

Good summary of the state of GM debates.

 

To me, all did well. All made terrible mistakes. All have a ring. All left the others with some good and bad for the next guy with DD's weak farm being the projected downside of his legacy.

 

I do tend to agree with this thinking.

 

With Cherington, I always felt he was great at laying the foundation (a foundation that, whether people admit it or not, Dombrowski was able to benefit from and build upon) but couldn't or wouldn't do what was necessary to put us over the top and back into legitimate title contention. Maybe he would have done that eventually, and maybe not. Given the way things went over his last couple of years here, I had no issues with him being removed when he was, and haven't spent any time since wishing he was back. Nonetheless, he brought us a championship, and 2013 can never be taken away from him, any more than 2018 can from Dombrowski.

 

I have disagreed with some of DD's moves, but I don't know which could be characterized as a "terrible mistake" knowing that they ultimately led to a championship. Maybe the Price contract takes a turn for the worse, or maybe Moncada or Kopech or Allen or Espinoza turn into stars with their new clubs, but at the end of the day, it's hard to imagine taking any of those decisions back knowing what the end result was. Delivering a title comes with a lot of goodwill and benefit of the doubt in my book...Cherington squandered his pretty quickly after 2013, but hopefully the same won't be true for Dombrowski. As I think Notin said earlier, what happens in 2020 and beyond might be the true test of DD's mettle, but he's more than earned my trust at this point, and I look forward to seeing what he has up his sleeve going forward.

[dgalehouse]

What a marvelous collection of straw man arguments in a single post...now that does require some talent.

 

Like I said...I'm not even sure what we're arguing here.

 

If it's whether the original Kimbrel trade was wise: I never loved the cost at the time, but it ultimately helped bring about a championship, so I have no cause to complain about it.

 

If it's whether Kimbrel should be re-signed for 2019 and beyond: given his warning signs of impending decline, and the proliferation of acceptable free agent alternatives, I'm fine with letting him go unless his asking price drops significantly. However, I have advocated spending money on further relief additions and opined that Robertson, Britton, Ottavino, and Herrera (several of whom have demonstrated the ability to get three outs with a three run lead) should be targets.

 

As far as I can tell, nowhere but in your imagination is anyone advocating signing Triple-A scrubs to pitch the 9th inning or hit in the middle of the lineup, but I'm glad you're on guard against such efforts. Keep up the good work!

 

Thanks for the somewhat condescending reply . I do not advocate breaking the bank to sign Kimbrel. But I do agree that we need a good , proven alternative to close games . I think it is a vital role . Actually, I was reacting to the notion that the difference between a great closer ( and Kimbrel is one of the all time great ones ) and a quote " bad closer " is only three saves a year . If my reply upset you or seemed childish to you , I sincerely apologize.

[notin]

Too much . This is why I have to get out of here . Absolutely ridiculous to think that the difference between a great closer and some mediocrity is just three saves . That could very possibly happen in just the first week . It's kind of like saying that the difference between a .300 hitter and a .200 hitter is just one lousy single in ten at bats. One can always find some statistical justification for nonsense . Mark Wohlers is a great example of having the mentality to be a closer. His confidence, career and almost his life were destroyed by one memorable blown save . And he could throw as hard as Aroldis Chapman .

 

Three blown saves. Not 3 saves. Huge difference.

 

It is possible you underestimate the number of saves that get converted. Boxberger was one of, if not the worst, and he was successful 80% of the time. (Edwin Diaz was successful 93% of the time, so there is the range.)

 

I do think Dombrowski is going to get a good back of the pen arm, likely via trade. But absolute worst case scenario for the 2019 Sox is Matt Barnes, who I would expect to be a great deal better than Boxberger....

[Jack Flap]

Thanks for the somewhat condescending reply . I do not advocate breaking the bank to sign Kimbrel. But I do agree that we need a good , proven alternative to close games . I think it is a vital role . Actually, I was reacting to the notion that the difference between a great closer ( and Kimbrel is one of the all time great ones ) and a quote " bad closer " is only three saves a year . If my reply upset you or seemed childish to you , I sincerely apologize.

 

It's all good, my friend. I likewise apologize if my reply was condescending.

[notin]

Too much . This is why I have to get out of here . Absolutely ridiculous to think that the difference between a great closer and some mediocrity is just three saves . That could very possibly happen in just the first week . It's kind of like saying that the difference between a .300 hitter and a .200 hitter is just one lousy single in ten at bats. One can always find some statistical justification for nonsense . Mark Wohlers is a great example of having the mentality to be a closer. His confidence, career and almost his life were destroyed by one memorable blown save . And he could throw as hard as Aroldis Chapman .

 

 

Also not sure why you find Wohlers’ opinion on the subject so worthless. The man was an All Star closer after all. While him home run to Leyritz certainly wasn’t a high point, the it also may not have ruined his career. He did save 33 games in 1997. In 1998 he had his infamous bout with Steve Blass disease, but that may have been more related to a divorce he was going through at the time...

[moonslav59]

I do tend to agree with this thinking.

 

With Cherington, I always felt he was great at laying the foundation (a foundation that, whether people admit it or not, Dombrowski was able to benefit from and build upon) but couldn't or wouldn't do what was necessary to put us over the top and back into legitimate title contention. Maybe he would have done that eventually, and maybe not. Given the way things went over his last couple of years here, I had no issues with him being removed when he was, and haven't spent any time since wishing he was back. Nonetheless, he brought us a championship, and 2013 can never be taken away from him, any more than 2018 can from Dombrowski.

 

I have disagreed with some of DD's moves, but I don't know which could be characterized as a "terrible mistake" knowing that they ultimately led to a championship. Maybe the Price contract takes a turn for the worse, or maybe Moncada or Kopech or Allen or Espinoza turn into stars with their new clubs, but at the end of the day, it's hard to imagine taking any of those decisions back knowing what the end result was. Delivering a title comes with a lot of goodwill and benefit of the doubt in my book...Cherington squandered his pretty quickly after 2013, but hopefully the same won't be true for Dombrowski. As I think Notin said earlier, what happens in 2020 and beyond might be the true test of DD's mettle, but he's more than earned my trust at this point, and I look forward to seeing what he has up his sleeve going forward.

 

I guess in light of other GM's "terrible mistakes," the Thornburg trade was pretty light. The gutting of the farm could be viewed as a terrible mistake by some, but with the recent wing, not by me.

 

[dgalehouse]

Also not sure why you find Wohlers’ opinion on the subject so worthless. The man was an All Star closer after all. While him home run to Leyritz certainly wasn’t a high point, the it also may not have ruined his career. He did save 33 games in 1997. In 1998 he had his infamous bout with Steve Blass disease, but that may have been more related to a divorce he was going through at the time...

 

Yeah. Maybe it was the divorce. We can speculate. He went downhill pretty fast . I wouldn't use him as an expert on the subject. As for Boxberger , he is not trash. He has had his moments. However , his numbers do not match up well against a guy like Kimbrel. I would hope for someone better than him. I just value the position of closer more than you do . This is not going to change. No sense in debating further.

[Kimmi]

I'm not sure I follow what this closer argument is even about anymore, and I guess it depends on how you'd define a "bad closer," but just about every year you can find a guy who saved 35+ games with an ERA around 4. Some around here seem to think that only the very best of the best are capable of closing games, but it isn't that difficult to rack up saves while being far less than lights-out.

 

I've just never really bought the idea that it takes some special or rare talent to record three outs with a three-run lead...which is one of the reasons I wouldn't mind Cora moving to a more progressive approach where you're willing to use your best reliever in the highest leverage situation (whether that be in the 9th, 8th, 7th, etc) without being a slave to the save statistic. I suspect from some of his past comments that Cora would be open to such an approach and would probably be capable of working wonders with it.

 

Jack, you are a voice of reason on this board. My point in the argument is simply that you don't have to spend an arm and a leg to get a very, very good closer.

[Kimmi]

Let’s play bWAR as was proposed.

 

Last year the worst closer was Brad Boxberger with 8 blown saves (Kimberly had 5! A difference of 3! Mark Wohlers was right!) in 40 chances for an 80% success rate. Given the same 47 chances Kimbrel had, Boxberger would get 37.6 saves at his current conversion rate, or 4.4 saves less than Kimbrel.

 

Boxberger was valued at -0.7 bWAR, or 3.5 fewer wins than Kimbrel and his 2.8, putting bWAR values within 1 win.

 

Now not every blown save is a losss. If we assume one of Boxberger’s 4.4 extra blown saves is a win, the numbers match up.

 

Having a strong bullpen, as a whole, is very important. Focusing so much attention on the role of the closer is not.

 

The vast majority of the time, the team entering the 9th inning with the lead is the team that wins the game.

[Nick]

Having a strong bullpen, as a whole, is very important. Focusing so much attention on the role of the closer is not.

 

The vast majority of the time, the team entering the 9th inning with the lead is the team that wins the game.

 

Well said.....I'll worry about it after 5 blown saves in a month. Until then, we're the freakin' World Champs.

[Kimmi]

Well said.....I'll worry about it after 5 blown saves in a month. Until then, we're the freakin' World Champs.

 

Amen brother!

[cp176]

Any reliever can get three outs with a three run lead . Why pay for a top closer ? Any triple A slugger can hammer a meatball. Why pay J.D. Martinez to DH ? Any high school kid can catch a fly ball . Why pay JBJ to play center ? Any Red Sox board poster can be a great baseball executive. Why pay Dave Dombrowski ? The answer to all of these : Because you are looking for excellence. If you can find enough excellence , you will have a great team. Maybe a World champion.

 

I hear your frustration here and I agree with you for the most part. I do think that the role of "closer" though has become over rated. The way I look at it is without a kimbrel on our staff, you have hurt our bullpen dramatically. I absolutely do not subscribe to the theory that if Kimbrel was not out there and not adequately replaced by someone of about the same ability (if that is possible) that we would have still won a world series title. I don't really even like to look at things this way though because it is second guessing in hindsight which I think is ridiculous. Every player on that roster had a role to play - some greater than others. If you take just one of those guys out of that lineup, we never have gotten to where we got.

[notin]

Having a strong bullpen, as a whole, is very important. Focusing so much attention on the role of the closer is not.

 

The vast majority of the time, the team entering the 9th inning with the lead is the team that wins the game.

 

 

Exactly what I’ve been saying.

 

The trend the past few years is this is becoming a game of bullpens. With starters averaging about 5 IP, per start, worrying about inning 6 through 8 is becoming more important than focusing solely on the 9th...

[Bellhorn04]

Exactly what I’ve been saying.

 

The trend the past few years is this is becoming a game of bullpens. With starters averaging about 5 IP, per start, worrying about inning 6 through 8 is becoming more important than focusing solely on the 9th...

 

Yes, the bridge to the closer keeps getting longer.

[notin]

Yes, the bridge to the closer keeps getting longer.

 

 

Don’t say “bridge” on a Red Sox website!!!!

[Bellhorn04]

Don’t say “bridge” on a Red Sox website!!!!

 

Bridge doesn't sound so bad compared to cliff.

[notin]

Bridge doesn't sound so bad compared to cliff.

 

 

Especially if you’re driving.

 

But then you can deny the existence of a bridge and still drive over it. That doesn’t always work so well with cliffs...

[cp176]

Exactly what I’ve been saying.

 

The trend the past few years is this is becoming a game of bullpens. With starters averaging about 5 IP, per start, worrying about inning 6 through 8 is becoming more important than focusing solely on the 9th...

 

I hope that no one denies this point notin. But it then becomes very important to have an excellent bullpen. If we just call all of these guys relief pitchers, it still doesn't address the impact of what losing a relief pitcher like Kimbrel might do to that bullpen.

[Jack Flap]

Having a strong bullpen, as a whole, is very important. Focusing so much attention on the role of the closer is not.

 

Yeah, this is pretty much what I was going for...I'd rather have multiple high-quality guys who you can mix and match in whatever situation you need to.

[Bellhorn04]

Yeah, this is pretty much what I was going for...I'd rather have multiple high-quality guys who you can mix and match in whatever situation you need to.

 

I think every team and every fan would be down with that.

[notin]

Yeah, this is pretty much what I was going for...I'd rather have multiple high-quality guys who you can mix and match in whatever situation you need to.

 

 

Exactly.

 

I want a guy I can have faith protecting a one run lead in a second and third with one out jam and the 3-4-5 hitters up. Rather than using anyone there and saving my closer for the ninth to face the 6-7-8 hitters...

[Bellhorn04]

Exactly.

 

I want a guy I can have faith protecting a one run lead in a second and third with one out jam and the 3-4-5 hitters up. Rather than using anyone there and saving my closer for the ninth to face the 6-7-8 hitters...

 

Statistically speaking, I think even the best relief pitchers in history are going to surrender a run in that scenario a certain % of the time. Just not sure what the % is...

[notin]

Statistically speaking, I think even the best relief pitchers in history are going to surrender a run in that scenario a certain % of the time. Just not sure what the % is...

 

 

But the idea of not using your best when you need him is the strategy I don’t like...