SoxHop

Yes, it's about going back to an old way of doing things. I'm not sure exactly how it would work. What it would be trying to do is get who is most likely your best reliever in more times during the year in situations that already call for a reliever. Maybe the closer roll would go away and he would be added to reliever pool, when there is a situation that. This idea would be more difficult for the manager to manage. I'm definitely not saying brining in the closer at any inning, especially the early ones where there is trouble, I would think the starter roll stays the same. Just maybe if the starter is starting to falter and now the situation is serious you would then go with your best guy. I agree, there are games that are more important to others. Top teams in your division or teams you are in a race with would take priority, there would be certain situations where there would be more need to go with your top guy. You would manage his innings like any other reliever. You all have seen games where you know the other team is going to do damage to the reliever who is in, or has already done damage. I have to question why isn't our best guy in at this time to stop it. Because if it isn't stopped at that time, you are then hoping your offense can overcome the deficit. Why not stop it before it happens, instead of waiting to use our best guy in the hope that he will be useful later in the game.

Yes, the role of closer has changed recently to be what it is now, a ninth inning person. I would think this method wouldn't be much more productive to a team that had multiple relievers of the same caliber. But out of the say 4 relievers, why would you be using the best one the least, and maybe using them at the point in the game when it's not the highest percentage of runs being scored against the team? If this strategy won one or two more games a year, it would be a success.

So here is the link to the article Kimmi sent out. http://www.beyondtheboxscore.com/2011/4/14/2110082/why-dont-sabermetric-gms-have-sabermetric-managers-and-shouldnt-they I really picked up on #5 because I have always questioned the closer role. I think it would be safe to say that more games are lost in innings earlier than the 9th inning. Here's a portion of what was written about closers in the article: One might think that the fact that closers don't pitch 100 innings anymore is mostly about closers being limited to one-inning saves. But they are also pitching fewer games. Look at the games pitched leaders for the 1970's and the first half of the 1980's. It is full of closers. You'll see names like Mike Marshall, Rollie Fingers, Dan Quisenberry, Willie Hernandez, Kent Tekulve and Mitch Williams. But by the 1990's and especially the 2000's, closers give way to setup men. You'll see names like Jesse Orosco, Steve Kline, Paul Quantrill, Matt Guerrier and Pedro Feliciano. So closers have been reduced primarily to single inning work, and not in a great number of games. In short, a team's best reliever is having his contribution to his team severely limited. Wouldn’t it make the most sense to 1) use a team’s best reliever in the highest leverage situations, and 2) have them pitch for more innings, thus maximizing their utility to their team? This is not some impractical pipe dream which works on paper but wouldn’t work in the real world. It worked very well for many years until closers started to be treated like hot house flowers. The return of the multi-inning fireman is very much overdue.

True for sure. But baseball players habits can be superstitious. And it's been that way as long as I can remember. Maybe some of the things they believe they need to do really don't need to be done. Especially if the cycle of superstition was broken. You don't see anything wrong in an example when we are up a run or two in the six or seventh with a man or two man on and we are bringing in say an Ogando type player while our closer waits for the ninth?

I'm not sure if major league players need consistency to succeed. Maybe that is just superstition. Closer by committee is only used now a days with bullpens that are horrible. So that is not is not an argument against the idea that it is wrong. Again, this is twist it from what you believe you think it right backed by loads of stats, this is a think outside the box idea. Not the, well they have been doing it for years so it must be right kind of explanation. I would think you would need a fairly smart manager to pull this off. Someone that over or under reacted in situations would burn this idea to the ground. But maybe the "wait till the ninth inning for our best guy to come in" is the easy way out. Maybe a manager who thought they could game the system by using the best tool at the time instead of a later possibility could work it so it would have a better outcome. The "Experience has shown" statement when stats prove otherwise can leave you behind the eight ball. Do you think that at this time, today, that the best baseball that has ever been played is going on right now? If anything, it's worth a discussion, even if it won 1 more game a year.

Where are you getting the 9th has the highest average leverage inning? The only advantage an offense has that inning is pinch hitting. Statistically does the meat of the order come up that inning more than other times, or does it have to do with the pressure of holding a lead on the offense? Why would the 9th be the inning with the most pressure to the defense on average? The discussion is using your best reliever at the most advantageous situation. Not the hypothetical team than only has one good reliever. We may be only talking a game or two a year for most teams as they are constructed in this era, but a game is a game. When a crises cometh...... why wait until there may be a crises in the 9th when there may not be and you already have one..?

I wonder how many at bats each slot from 1 to 9 each averages out to in a year. That must have been part of the equation.

The closer position never really sat well with me. I always thought that something was off about it, especially seeing games go down the toilet in the 6th when our best person is hanging out waiting for the ninth. I'm glad I have something else backing up my opinion.

Ok, sure. If you have three of the same caliber of pitchers to the closer, then yes. What does it really matter. I agree. I'm trying to think about this being comfortable in a spot discussion with batting order and relieving. When I played ball, it was ingrained in me that I had a place in the batting order and when I pitched. But, really thinking about it, I'm pretty sure it wouldn't have effected me one way or another if I was moved around in the spot. You're either dialed in for a game or you aren't. I think these gets into the "ballplayers are superstitious" category. We'll closers aren't securing anything if they are already down a run or more. What if they were used to plug the whole before the damage was done? You're right, managing a bullpen is maybe the toughest thing a manager has to do. But you, I and managers can tell when things are starting to get out of hand. One man on no outs is danger, two men on no outs is really dangerous. It's these times that I think you could bring in a closer in the right situation and stop the big inning before it starts. To me the closer roll seems like a good arm goes to waste quite a bit. Sometimes they have to be brought in just to "get their work in". Or some games they sit on the shelf because it's a blowout either way. Or maybe the closer comes in to shutdown the 7-8-9 hitter when a reliever not as good could have been used.

Two runs in the six are the same as two runs in the night. The score at the end of the game, usually 9 innings, dictates the winner. Why not use your best pitcher when things start to look like they can get out of control, instead of when they already have, or wait to a perfect opportunity to use them as they sit on the shelf or waste using them just to keep them fresh. The old way of building bullpens is pretty much the same way they are now. Get the best arms you can, maybe with a couple of specialists. There's no magic in it. I agree with the article Kimmi posted. Statistically it's correct. I agree it would work in real life situations during a season.

Personally I think the closer roll is garbage and over rated. Why wait to save a game before it's not possible to save? I would think a manager may want to bring in their best reliever early when there is trouble, it would be the best way to get out of trouble and avoid what way me a big inning. Why save the best reliever? If the best reliever falters, then the game may be down the drain..... might as well now use junk relievers and save the better relievers for a game where it is tight. How comfortable someone feels in a batter order probably equates to about the same thing as when a reliever comes in. Personally, I think players being moved around would get over it after a while. They would step up to the new role. Thanks for condensing a post.

What does that mean in 1 paragraph or less? More than 1 paragraph and I'm not reading your reply. Closers shouldn't be used with a people on because they aren't firemen? Closers are only closers because they need to start the inning with no one on? Why during playoff time does that get abandoned then? Also, there isn't a high leverage inning. A run is a run in any inning. Why wait until the 9th to really protect a lead?

Thanks for the article Kimmi. I especially agree with the article and the role of the closer. I've never come to grips with the best bullpen pitcher not being used in situations earlier in the game when things start to go bad.

Why is that? I hadn't heard of that before?

ahaha... yea. I know quite a bit about the Sox, but don't have the time to know many other teams in depth, so I don't know their flaws. I think some of our previous Sox teams that won around 91 games would have out played our current team, so I'm surprised at the 91 win projection. I could see a really good year for this team, but we'll need some luck and for some question marks to go well. I guess that's pretty par for the course of any year.

ahahahah....... I've never seen a man more ready for baseball than yourself........ I hear you........ me too......... I'm ready to get this thing going......

How about them Sox this year huh?

So Taz, Koji, Kimbrel for the last three innings. Is Smith our next best relief other than a specialist? Saw that his 2015 was pretty good.

Just messing with as you know. I like hearing good things about Hanley. I guess I hate hearing someone is an a-hole. Clemens never fails to deliver.

huh?

I'll do that. It sounds like you had really good time. I'm pretty sure everyone here would have really loved going to that. Especially A700, he's kind of a Hanley fanboy.

That sounds about right. I'm not sure who is already crowning the Sox though. Add to the pitching question marks, we also have infield corners who could be ......... umm........ atrocious. I think walking into a season with so many unknowns is a bad thing. Heck, last years pitching was full of them and turned out bad. That solid number 2 pitcher would have been enough for me to think we are definitely going places. Now the Sox fans just have to hope for the best. And Porcello can't be problem this year, If that happens...... well......... we have major problems....... What do we do with Porcello if his first 5 games are crap???????

We need to get a bet going on when Buchholtz goes down.

I just find it interesting that we have 4 pitchers that all have shown ace like qualities for stretches at a time last year. The staff could be great, or very bad, or somewhere in the middle. But it's just kind of fun thinking about them all pitching to their best ability.

I think we really have something with E-Rod. I don't think he needs to overachieve. I see him as a solid 3 at the least and possibly being a solid number 2. That leaves Kelly and Buch. If Buch does his "I'm an ace thing" for a while that's cool, but then we fill him in the last part of the year which balances his performance out. Now if Kelly does is "I'm and ace thing", then the unexpected just became reality and BAM........ we have 4 top end of the rotation guys hurling in the rotation..... it could be magical. Also, has Kelly ever been just mediocre????? Last year he was either terrible or great.