Posted on 07/10/2013 11:10:37 AM PDT by 1rudeboy
In 1988 for the Oakland Athletics, Tony LaRussa initiated his strategy of using Dennis Eckersley as a 9th inning, only-when-leading relief pitcher – a “closer.” The move helped the A’s and resurrected Eckersley from an over-the-hill starter to Cy Young and MVP winner. The success of the Athletics and Eckersley popularized the practice with it eventually attaining universal adoption across MLB. Specific elements of the Eckersley case made the strategy make sense. He was an aging starter with a lot of inning mileage in his arm. Restricting his innings and making them very predictable so as to ease warming up improved his performance and extended his career while helping the team. Beyond his case, however, was the the universal adoption of the practice evidence of it’s wisdom or a case of mindless managerial imitation?
Among all closers over the past 25 years, the Yankees’ Mariano Rivera leads the pack as the most celebrated. Yet, one can make a strong case that he has been underutilized. Arguably, Rivera’s most impactful year was 1996, which preceded his use as the 9th inning closer. At that time, John Wetteland filled the Eckersley-esque role. By simple metrics, Wetteland performed very well, leading the league with 43 saves. Rivera’s numbers, however, both conventional and more sophisticated ones, bettered Wetteland while Rivera pitched nearly 70 percent more innings.
Glaring holes crop up in the universal adoption of the closer strategy. Foremost, as in Rivera’s case, it underutilizes great talent. The rationale might be summarized as “this guy is really effective, so let’s pitch him a lot less and only when we are ahead in the 9th inning.” Where else would that kind of thinking fly? LeBron James is killing the other team, so let’s save him until late in the 4th quarter to help preserve leads? Not only have closers become a universally accepted norm in MLB, but the successful ones command very high salaries. Rivera’s salary has rivaled that of the best starting pitchers even though he pitches 3 to 4 times fewer innings. Would a team pay huge bucks for a pinch hitter, even a great one by historical standards? (The fact that by some sabermetric measures, a reliever like Rivera can influence wins by half as much or more than a starting pitcher like Justin Verlander or Roy Halladay only calls into question those metrics. )
No doubt, certain pitchers, even though very effective, may be better suited to shorter relief appearances because of limited variety of pitches, pitching mechanics, or other issues as with Dennis Eckersley. Maybe Mariano Rivera and many other marquee closers fit this bill. Nonetheless, the nearly exclusive use in the 9th with leads defies easy explanation. Why not use the best relief pitcher in the most dangerous, pressure-filled situations? This is how the best relievers prior to the Eckersley era had been employed whether Bruce Sutter, Goose Gossage or others. Predictability of use, and therefore, ease of mental and physical preparation is sometimes offered as a reason, but use in tight games in pressure-filled situations is fairly predictable too.
The highly structured, ahead- in-the-9th inning (once in a while tied) is even harder to understand for teams struggling to win games. Perversely, it limits the best relief pitchers on the staff to situations that arise infrequently, or, else, puts them in “get-some-work-in” situations that matter very little. With the Yankees regular season success over his career, Rivera enjoyed many opportunities that fit the closer structure. However, in playoff series where the Yankees have struggled for leads, Rivera barely appeared. For instance, in the 2011 AL Championship Series, he pitched only one meaningful inning over 6 games (along with 2 others in blowouts just to “get work.”). Imagine any other player or any other sport where you pay a health guy $15 million just to sit on the bench in key situations.
We need a rockstar closer in AZ. The D-backs have a committee of non-closers, notably a guy named Putz.
If we had a rockstar closer in AZ, we’d have a 12-game lead in the NL West. As it is, we’re barely hanging on.
Also: anybody need a slow-footed outfielder named Kubel, who only hits for one month out of the season, and that month has come and gone?
JJ is still around? I remember him when he played for the White Sox. He was fine, but I imagine his feeling his age by now.
Glad my Braves have the best in the business: Kimbrel.
Glad my Braves have the best in the business: Kimbrel.
WITH the press the way it is, it saves the manager from controversy ... having a closer. If a bullpen arm, blows a lead in the 7th inning, not nearly as controversial as the 9th inning loss.
having 2 closers that go 2+ innings makes sense, but managers do not like it.
Example, BoSox manager Farrell seems to follow theory that relief pitchers perform best when doing only 1 inning at a time with frequent game appearances ... rather than going back out and warming up for a 2nd inning.
Breslow did 2 1/3 last night (?) ... a rarity for Farrell.
Hi 1rudeboy, I hope you are well.
I’ve always wondered about the glory of the c-loser. Usually, they enter the game with no one on base, hence no fire to put out.
C-losers are now judged by whether they pitch “clean” innings. High WHIPs destroyed many c-losers. If they entered the game earlier, when their predecesor was in trouble (with men on base) they would have the same effect as other pitchers.
After all, baseball is a game of firsts; the first pitch, the first out, and the first run. If a pitcher controls the firsts, he will probably get the W.
Many c-losers fail to thrive because of the pressure of the firsts. Like all outstanding athletes, c-losers must have short memories. It seems that the best come in and get the FIRST pitch over for a strike. Then they have a somewhat more difficult time getting the FIRST out. The opponent may get the FIRST baserunner, leading to the FIRST Run against the c-loser. Then, you often see another relief pitcher inserted to take the shelling.
By the way, I believe that LaRussa was helping Eck out with incentive clauses in his contract. Save rules were significantly modified because of Eck.
Interesting post. Thank you for putting it into the ethers.
Glad my Braves have the best in the business: Kimbrel.
It's an interesting question: is your typical NFL coach afraid to go for it on fourth down, because of the resulting bad publicity if he fails, and potential hazard to his career? Is something similar happening with MLB managers and the 9th inning?
Yeah, JJ is still around. He’s not only old, he’s old with an injury. They keep running him out there, hoping his splitter will split; but it won’t.
Being an unknown quantity helps a great deal as it takes a season or two for the league to figure you out.
Hoyt Wilhelm- 1952-1972-Pitched 21 yrs. Pitched in over 1000 games, over 2000 innings. Started 54 times.
If your starters are good enough you don’t need a good closer.
The first of the “closers” as I recall was Rollie Fingers with the Oakland A’s of the early 1970s. The first “lights out” closer was Bruce Sutter of the Cubs in 1977. With his split-finger fastball, he was unhittable. I think he was really the closer who changed the game. From the 1980s on, every team sought to have that one guy who could shut down another team for one inning. A quality closer meant the other team only had eight innnings to score on you.
Right now, there is actually a shortage of really reliable closers in MLB. I look at the rosters and don’t know if there is anyone who isn’t capapble of blowing a save. Or maybe I just watch too many Cub games.
There's always hope. ;)
my other thought is that one could graph the “odds of trailing team winning (or tying) ... if they are down by 2 entering the 7th ... odds are higher perhaps 20% ... a 2 run lead entering the ninth ... perhaps 5% chance ... if the closer waits until the tying run is at the plate with 2 outs ... he doesn’t get enough work.
The big problem unaddressed is that guys lie Mariano take time to warm up. if you warm him up in the middle of a 7th inning rally ... the inning might be over by the time he is ready ... and what if he comes in and then the Yanks get 5 runs in the 8th? A wasted appearance?
My own preference would be to have “2-inning closers” and carry two of them.
Scherzer is the 14-0 ace this year. Verlander is a fine pitcher but is working through changing mechanics as he ages.
I drafted him for $1.50 in my roto league.
I had wanted the league to be a keeper league, but it failed. Scherzer (obviously) would still be on my roster. He'd have been the veteran on my team. Ok, so I'm pissed that my league folded, and I have no friends.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.