What's in a "closer"?

[babaganoosh]

Often times I see teams forking out big money to sign this stud closer. Teams are willing to give up good players to get a closer with experience. Then I look at some team's bullpens and I wonder why teams are wiling to spend money and give up more to get a pitcher previously labelled a "closer".

A team like the Blue Jays entrusted that job to BJ Ryan with an ERA close to 3, when they had Scott Downs in their pen with an ERA under 2.

The Rangers stuck with their labelled "closer" CJ Wilson for god knows how long until he got injured, ending the season with an ERA over 6. Meanwhile Frank Francisco had an ERA under 4 for much of the season, ending the season close to 3.

The Angels were willing to offer quite a bit of money (though not enough)for K-Rod, but they shouldn't have to worry about finding a replacement because they have a damn good late inning guy in Scott Shields.

Oakland stuck with Huston Street for quite some time with an ERA hovering around 4 when they had another stud in their pen in Ziegler who had an insane start to his MLB career and finished the season with an ERA around 1.

Tampa stuck with Percival with an ERA of about 4.5 when they had guys in there like Balfour (1.5), Wheeler (3), and Bradfore (2) back there.

And the list goes on and on where teams stick with a pitcher to close just because they were labelled "closers". I say why spend obscene amounts of money on some closer when you can pick up a damn good set-up man for much cheaper and there's as good a chance that he'll excel in the closers role anyways.

[NYMets523]

It comes down to mental toughness. Some guys just can't pitch with the game on the line.

[SamtheBravesFan]

I hear what you're saying, but I also think that over the past couple of decades or so, the closer role has sunk in and now it requires a "mindset" to do it. I still believe that anyone can close, especially if they have the mindset to do it. However, there are some people that just can't handle the pressure they put on themselves in that role because they perceive it as a vital role to the team.

[spark240]

It comes down to mental toughness.

Gosh, I heard that on TV too. It must be true.

[NYMets523]

Gosh, I heard that on TV too. It must be true.

Spare us the sarcasm :rolleyes:

[babaganoosh]

Here's the thing about the "mental toughness" and mindset involved with being a closer, a lot of the guys I namedd (Downs, Francisco, Wheeler, Ziegler, etc.) all have had chances to save games and none of them really faltered much and certainly transitioned into that role very easily.

And I mean for a guy like Street, he's struggled a bit for the past 3 years or so after his rookie season. And if he had the closer's mentality and such to perform so well in his rookie campaign, how much could've changed in 1 year that would cause his ERA to almost double and stay around that mark for the next couple years. And if in fact your mentality can change so quickly, then I get back to my point on whether you really need to sign a guy for this mentality that can change so easily. A guy like Perci I can take the excuse that age has affected his "stuff" on the mound, but a guy like Street who should be entering his prime doesn't have that excuse.

Another guy that comes to mind is Fuentes. Over the past couple years he's struggled and vounced back, been in and out of the closer's role, and yet this guy is probably in the top 3 UFA closers (obviously after K-Rod) this year. And I'm not saying he's a bad closer and doesn't deserve to close, but there's got to be another middle-relief pitcher with good numbers that could hold onto a job better than many of the closers out there right now.

Another guy to consider is Kerry Wood. Though he hasn't exactly struggled, but why do the Cubs not use Marmol in the closer's role instead. He's less injury prone, he got the saves when Wood was out or over-used, he's got the arm to go 2-inning saves if needed, and he's a young stud you can keep around. Why not trade Wood for a good set-up guy + a prospect and you'll have an equally good back of the pen and some cash + prospects to work with.

[Berkman#17]

Because there's more to the Wood situation after his last contract situation. They are gonna hold onto him until his arm falls ALL the way off.

[Imgran]

I hear what you're saying, but I also think that over the past couple of decades or so, the closer role has sunk in and now it requires a "mindset" to do it. I still believe that anyone can close, especially if they have the mindset to do it. However, there are some people that just can't handle the pressure they put on themselves in that role because they perceive it as a vital role to the team.

And said another way, there are also those that thrive on it and become far better than they were orignally projected to be, as closers. Examples: Mariano Rivera, Trevor Hoffmann, Jonathan Papelbon, Dennis Eckersley.

[NYMets523]

And I mean for a guy like Street, he's struggled a bit for the past 3 years or so after his rookie season. And if he had the closer's mentality and such to perform so well in his rookie campaign, how much could've changed in 1 year that would cause his ERA to almost double and stay around that mark for the next couple years. And if in fact your mentality can change so quickly, then I get back to my point on whether you really need to sign a guy for this mentality that can change so easily. A guy like Perci I can take the excuse that age has affected his "stuff" on the mound, but a guy like Street who should be entering his prime doesn't have that excuse.
Huston Street's BAbip by season:
2005: .250
2006: .299
2007: .259
2008: .287

2005 and 2007 were better than his 2006 and 2008 seasons and this is reflected in his BAbip. To put it simply, Street just wasn't as good as he was in 2005.

Another guy that comes to mind is Fuentes. Over the past couple years he's struggled and vounced back, been in and out of the closer's role, and yet this guy is probably in the top 3 UFA closers (obviously after K-Rod) this year. And I'm not saying he's a bad closer and doesn't deserve to close, but there's got to be another middle-relief pitcher with good numbers that could hold onto a job better than many of the closers out there right now.
Again, BAbip comes into play here. In 2007, Fuentes had a horrible June and July which is when he lost his closer's job. His BAbip those months were 378 and 400 respectively.

Another guy to consider is Kerry Wood. Though he hasn't exactly struggled, but why do the Cubs not use Marmol in the closer's role instead. He's less injury prone, he got the saves when Wood was out or over-used, he's got the arm to go 2-inning saves if needed, and he's a young stud you can keep around. Why not trade Wood for a good set-up guy + a prospect and you'll have an equally good back of the pen and some cash + prospects to work with.
A better example would be why didn't the Indians use Rafael Betancourt or Rafael Perez instead of Joe Borowski as their closer. The answer to this is simple. Some managers do not think highly of the closer's role. This idea was mentioned in Moneyball (I don't have the book on me so I can't double-check). I do know that Bill James mentioned this when he was on 60 Minutes in March. By not using your best reliever in the 9th inning, you can bring him into a situation when the game is really on the line. I don't know for certain that is what Lou Piniella is doing, but it could be a reason and one that makes sense. It could also be why the A's never used Ziegler as the closer either.

[Imgran]

All I know is that a huge part of the difference between one of the best offensive teams in baseball, the 2003 Red Sox, and a 2004 team with less offense that won the World Series, was that the 2003 squad did not have a lockdown closer (Kim doesn't count, Grady had no faith in him) and the 2004 squad had Foulkie.

A lockdown closer takes an inning away from the opposing bats making consistent success more possible.

[Death to Crawling Things]

Well Kerry Wood in the closer actually makes some sense. It gives him a definite place to be put in, so the Cubs can "baby" his damaged arm. Most other bullpen spots can get abused during the season pretty easily.

[Mattingly]

Often times I see teams forking out big money to sign this stud closer. Teams are willing to give up good players to get a closer with experience. Then I look at some team's bullpens and I wonder why teams are wiling to spend money and give up more to get a pitcher previously labelled a "closer".

A team like the Blue Jays entrusted that job to BJ Ryan with an ERA close to 3, when they had Scott Downs in their pen with an ERA under 2.
Was Scott Downs (http://www.baseball-reference.com/d/downssc01.shtml) ever brought in with the game on the line? If the bases were loaded, no outs, 1 run lead in the 8th, the team's #3 hitter at bat, would he be called in?

Downs has 7 career saves, so he could be used as a closer on a trial basis. If he was at least a setup man, he may have some value as an interim closer. However, if he always started the 7th inning, got 3 outs, left 1 guy on 1B, then he'd likely cruise to a low ERA. If it's a 2-1 ballgame, everyone sweats, so that puts more pressure on guys.
The Rangers stuck with their labelled "closer" CJ Wilson for god knows how long until he got injured, ending the season with an ERA over 6. Meanwhile Frank Francisco had an ERA under 4 for much of the season, ending the season close to 3.

The Angels were willing to offer quite a bit of money (though not enough)for K-Rod, but they shouldn't have to worry about finding a replacement because they have a damn good late inning guy in Scott Shields.
Wasn't Scott Shields their setup? If he's been effective, then he could be a low-cost alternative. I believe that K-Rod (or HR-Rod, if you watched last night's shot off Bay's bat) was used mostly for the 9th inning, rarely in the 8th inning. Seems like an artificial way of manufacturing stats, but all that coddling can seem wasteful of good talent, I believe.
Oakland stuck with Huston Street for quite some time with an ERA hovering around 4 when they had another stud in their pen in Ziegler who had an insane start to his MLB career and finished the season with an ERA around 1.
Huston Street (http://www.baseball-reference.com/s/streehu01.shtml) had 70 innings in 63 games. Brad Ziegler (http://www.baseball-reference.com/z/zieglbr01.shtml) had 59+ innings 47 games.
Tampa stuck with Percival with an ERA of about 4.5 when they had guys in there like Balfour (1.5), Wheeler (3), and Bradfore (2) back there.

And the list goes on and on where teams stick with a pitcher to close just because they were labelled "closers". I say why spend obscene amounts of money on some closer when you can pick up a damn good set-up man for much cheaper and there's as good a chance that he'll excel in the closers role anyways.
How have Balfour, Wheeler and Bradfore been used? Were they used in save situations? How reliable were they in low-scoring games?

Are you referring to a closer by committee, or one setup converted to closer, and a good mid-reliever converted to setup?

[NYMets523]

Wasn't Scott Shields their setup? If he's been effective, then he could be a low-cost alternative. I believe that K-Rod (or HR-Rod, if you watched last night's shot off Bay's bat) was used mostly for the 9th inning, rarely in the 8th inning. Seems like an artificial way of manufacturing stats, but all that coddling can seem wasteful of good talent, I believe.


JD Drew hit the HR and no one is calling K-Rod "HR-Rod" after last night.

That said, the Angels' will likely promote Jose Arredondo as their closer next year.

[babaganoosh]

Huston Street's BAbip by season:
2005: .250
2006: .299
2007: .259
2008: .287

2005 and 2007 were better than his 2006 and 2008 seasons and this is reflected in his BAbip. To put it simply, Street just wasn't as good as he was in 2005.


Again, BAbip comes into play here. In 2007, Fuentes had a horrible June and July which is when he lost his closer's job. His BAbip those months were 378 and 400 respectively.

With both the Street and Fuentes examples, I was going for the "closer's mentality" people were mentioning. All this coming in in a tight situation, having experience, and all of that didn't help either pitcher. They struggled here and there like any other middle relief pitcher might. Which is why wonder why teams don't just use their best and most consistant reliever in the closing role instead of going out and paying a crapload of money to get a guy who probably will struggle more than your set-up guy.

Was Scott Downs (http://www.baseball-reference.com/d/downssc01.shtml) ever brought in with the game on the line? If the bases were loaded, no outs, 1 run lead in the 8th, the team's #3 hitter at bat, would he be called in?

Downs has 7 career saves, so he could be used as a closer on a trial basis. If he was at least a setup man, he may have some value as an interim closer. However, if he always started the 7th inning, got 3 outs, left 1 guy on 1B, then he'd likely cruise to a low ERA. If it's a 2-1 ballgame, everyone sweats, so that puts more pressure on guys.

No stats or anything on me as to when Downs was brought in, but I know that BJ Ryan wasn't brought in in the 8th even if the game was on the line. I would say that role went to a mixture of Downs, Carlson, and maybe League towards the end of the year. And for a good portion of the year he was a setup man because of those numbers.


Huston Street (http://www.baseball-reference.com/s/streehu01.shtml) had 70 innings in 63 games. Brad Ziegler (http://www.baseball-reference.com/z/zieglbr01.shtml) had 59+ innings 47 games.

I would certainly hope that within Ziegler's next 10 innings had he pitched those that his ERA would quadruple. Since taking over the closer's role his ERA is something around 2.5, still considerably better than Street and that ERA already excludes his sensational scoreless streak at the beginning of the season.


How have Balfour, Wheeler and Bradfore been used? Were they used in save situations? How reliable were they in low-scoring games?

Are you referring to a closer by committee, or one setup converted to closer, and a good mid-reliever converted to setup?

Once again, no clue where to find the stats for when they came in, but I know Wheeler did a lot of tight late-inning work and closing when Perci went down with injuries. And I would be referring to any 1 of the 3 names mentioned being converted into a closer with the others filling the appropriate voids left.

[spark240]

Spare us the sarcasm :rolleyes:

Why? It was in service of a serious point. Much of what people say about baseball on TV is nonsense.

A lockdown closer takes an inning away from the opposing bats making consistent success more possible.

Well, sure, but the same can be said for using an ace reliever in any inning, not just the ninth. Indeed, it's quite common that the pivotal inning, the one that makes or breaks the game, is not the ninth. There are a thousand game situations which are more threatening, more demanding on the pitcher and defense, than the typical "save" situation of entering at the beginning of the opponent ninth, bases empty, with as much as a three-run lead in hand. An average relief pitcher should be able to "convert" most of the typical "save" situations. Of course an ace reliever ought to be better still--"lockdown"--but it does not follow that using your ace reliever in those situations (and usually only in those situations) is the best way to use him. The game usually isn't "on the line" in a ninth-inning "save" situation, or at least no more so than it is any time a pitcher confronts an opposing lineup.

Having an ace reliever, or more than one, is definitely key, but saving him exclusively for "save" situations (and paying him huge money to play the exclusive role) is inefficient at best, and by diverting talent and resources from other areas of the team and the game, could even be counterproductive.

[Mattingly]

JD Drew hit the HR and no one is calling K-Rod "HR-Rod" after last night.

That said, the Angels' will likely promote Jose Arredondo as their closer next year.
Probably my sarcasm getting in the way how Anaheim beat Boston for 6 of 8 in the regulars, then the playoffs turn into a crapshoot, and Anaheim looks to likely be swept on Sunday in Boston.

I just don't think it's a good idea to have a single-purpose closer, one that is only (or primarily) used to work one inning. I subscribe to the philosophy of a closer being an "as needed reliever", as Bill James has suggested, and as mentioned in this thread. A firefighter, as they've often been called.

Jonathan Papelbon, while certainly not my favorite individual (long story), did just that in the bottom of the 8th on Friday, men on base, no outs, 1 run lead. If that's not a arsonous fire to be extinguished, I don't know what is. Allowing 1 run that inning isn't that bad, especially since none were allowed in the 9th.

I think that someone of Rodriguez' obvious talent and effectiveness needs to stay away from the tightly scripted role and be more versatile. For this winter's top FA closer, I think that Sciosia could baby him a lot less. Between this and that Manny moonshot, that's two big blasts that Rodriguez has given up to Boston.

If he can leap into that blazing fire, use his skills and defense to secure the win, I believe he'd better help his team.

[Imgran]

If you don't have a second reliever who can serve as a firefighter, you're screwed anyway. THe idea is to attract as many talented RP's as possible after all.

[babaganoosh]

Jonathan Papelbon, while certainly not my favorite individual (long story), did just that in the bottom of the 8th on Friday, men on base, no outs, 1 run lead. If that's not a arsonous fire to be extinguished, I don't know what is. Allowing 1 run that inning isn't that bad, especially since none were allowed in the 9th.

I think that someone of Rodriguez' obvious talent and effectiveness needs to stay away from the tightly scripted role and be more versatile. For this winter's top FA closer, I think that Sciosia could baby him a lot less. Between this and that Manny moonshot, that's two big blasts that Rodriguez has given up to Boston.

If he can leap into that blazing fire, use his skills and defense to secure the win, I believe he'd better help his team.
I think if a team has a deep bullpen, or maybe just 2 great late-inning relievers like the Angels have this year with Shields and K-Rod, and though not a Yankee fan, the Yankees could try this (though I doubt they will). If there's a tight spot in the 6th or 7th inning, bases loaded, 0 out, you need a big strikeout or pop-up, why not bring in that closer. If the game remains close, bring in your second best guy in the 9th if need be (Angels = Shields, Yankees = Chamberlain...hope he doesn't keep starting) with the bases empty and secure that save. If I were a manager, I would love to have them face my best reliever to decide the game, even in the 6th, if that means I use my closer.

But I guess back to the thread, it has been mentioned what happens when the game is on the line before the 9th inning. Well you bring in this lockdown reliever and not your closer. And as spark talked about, sometimes the middle to late relievers face situations with even more pressure than closers do coming in with nobody on in a 3-run game.

Basically what I guess I'm going for from the start of the thread until now is break down the perception of a closer and really use your best reliever for the tightest situation, when the game is on the line, regardless of the inning. If that situation comes in the 9th, then use him in the 9th and not some guy you opened the season using who is struggling.

[NYMets523]

Probably my sarcasm getting in the way how Anaheim beat Boston for 6 of 8 in the regulars, then the playoffs turn into a crapshoot, and Anaheim looks to likely be swept on Sunday in Boston.
Boston isn't like the Dodgers though. They did win 95 games, 5 less than the Angels.

I just don't think it's a good idea to have a single-purpose closer, one that is only (or primarily) used to work one inning. I subscribe to the philosophy of a closer being an "as needed reliever", as Bill James has suggested, and as mentioned in this thread. A firefighter, as they've often been called.
It should change but like pitch counts and other modern facets of baseball, it will stay. I agree with the theory of the "firefighter" reliever. However, I think teams need a quality closer simply because it's "keeping up with the Joneses"

I think that someone of Rodriguez' obvious talent and effectiveness needs to stay away from the tightly scripted role and be more versatile. For this winter's top FA closer, I think that Sciosia could baby him a lot less. Between this and that Manny moonshot, that's two big blasts that Rodriguez has given up to Boston.
Those are his only two bad post-seasons. He was very good in 2002, 2004, and 2005. He'll stay a closer because that's where the money is and no one will pay $15M a year for a guy who pitches in the 6th or 7th inning since that reliever doesn't put up the gaudy Save numbers (a stat which needs revision).

[DownUnderDodger]

Am I allowed to throw in a little humor here? The best 'Closer' I have seen is Brenda Johnston :happy:

I was interested to see Maddux used as a closer by Joe Torre in game 1 against the Cubs. I guess a good starter can also be a good closer? He made this choice presumably because they were in a strong position in the game and wanted to hold Saito back for game 2.

[Imgran]

People who oppose the closer need to open their minds a bit (I know, I know) and accept the fact that there's a valid argument for having a closer -- one that converts 85+% of save chances at any rate.

Even just an argument from history supports the idea. If there wasn't a purpose to it the practice wouldn't have started in the first place.

Also let's consider the fate of recent teams that have tried the fireman approach as a matter of policy (rather than as a matter of having your closer underperform or get hurt like the '06 Cards).

Tigers in '06, '07, '08
Indians in '07 and '08
Red Sox in '03
Phillies in '08
Marlins in '06

Not an auspicious bunch. It seems to me that one of the characteristics of a fireman's bullpen is plenty of fires. Another one is that this supposed matter of policy seems to be mostly a thinly-veiled attempt to stretch a shallow bullpen a little further. The fireman approach might as well be called the "combover" approach, as it's mostly an attempt to redistribute a scant resource and trust to a bit of luck to keep you covered.

For a team with a solid cadre of relievers, your best reliever might not necessarily be your closer as a matter of clubhouse politics (a guy who is not the "closer" might be putting up better numbers IOW) but you have 1-2 other guys who could potentially get the job done in the absence of that designated closer. These guys are the ones who show up in a "fireman" role. Good example of this: The Cubs' Carlos Marmol. Another one: The Red Sox' Justin Masterson or Javier Lopez.

So to respond the question of whether you should have a closer or a good fireman, the real answer is that if you don't have both, you're in deep doodoo and no amount of strategic repositioning is going to turn 1 good reliever into several.

[Death to Crawling Things]

Am I allowed to throw in a little humor here? The best 'Closer' I have seen is Brenda Johnston :happy:

I was interested to see Maddux used as a closer by Joe Torre in game 1 against the Cubs. I guess a good starter can also be a good closer? He made this choice presumably because they were in a strong position in the game and wanted to hold Saito back for game 2.

Well, I remember one year, when the Braves had a horrible pen. During the playoffs, they used the starter that was due for the day to work on the side between starts as the closer. I know Smoltz, and maybe Maddux made relief appearances that postseason. Didnt help all that much though.

[Death to Crawling Things]

Though back in 1985. The Cards had great success by committee after Sutter fled. Though, to be fair Worrell became the "main" closer by season's end. And second, the fact that multi-IP appearances and saves spread out somewhat in a bullpen were much more prevalent 20+ years ago.

Anyhow, I'd probably want a definite closer in my pen. But, I also would want the option of occasionally using him in a much needed fireman role. Maybe it will only be 4 or 5 times during the year. And hell, if he is worried about his contract, I'd stick up for him at contract time if that was all it was. "Hey he didnt get a SV that game, but if not for him we wouldnt have won"

:rolleyes:

Heck, even 10 years ago, closers came in a lot in the 8th to get an out or 2 in a jam, then pitch the 9th. They could at least go back to that a little. 1 IP where you start out the inning to begin with, just ridiculous.

[Mike90]

I don't want to underrate the importance of relief pitchers, but it seems like the concept of a "closer" has become significantly overrated by the public. I think closers need to have mental toughness to recover from a bad outing or respond to the pressure of pitching with the game on the line. In that way, a closer's mentality is important.

But don't starters need a special sort of mentality as well? A starting pitcher has more impact on a single game than any other player. There is a lot of pressure on a starter; Rollie Fingers has said that the pressure from starting was overwhelming, and he pitched better as a reliever. If a reliever blows a save, he could theoretically come back the very next game and redeem himself. If a starter gives up 8 runs in 2 innings, he has to wait about 4 to 6 days to make up for his awful start. Those are a lot of days to ponder a terrible performance. A pitcher's ability to put the past behind him is probably more important for a starter than a reliever.

A professional athlete needs mental toughness: everyday players have to be tough, setup men have to be tough, closers and starters have to be tough. The idea that closers are some kind of mental supermen has become ingrained in baseball culture mainly because very few people have disputed it; I don't think the idea holds up to any sort of scrutiny. Maybe there are some starters that wouldn't excel as relievers, but there are definitely more relievers that wouldn't excel as starters (Goose Gossage, Rollie Fingers, and Eric Gagne come immediately to mind). Top relievers who pitch 70 innings in a season are not as valuable as top starters who pitch 220.

This is not to say that there aren't great relievers, but a great starter is so much more valuable than a great reliever. On a somewhat related topic, if K-Rod and his 68 innings wins the Cy Young over Cliff Lee, I am never going to take the voting seriously again.

[gman5431]

A great starter is way more valuable then a great reliever. As noted above, they throw about 3 - 4 times as many innings. Here is my feeling on closers - the closer role is over rated but, it behooves a team to have a solid pitcher in the so called "closer role." I think the 9th inning is somewhat mental but much of it is over rated. The most crucial part of many games happens in the 7th or 8th inning when guys get on a reliver comes into a "jam."

G Man

[Buczilla]

This data here pretty much says it all for me when discussing the issue/value of a closer. You can go as far back in time as you want and these numbers remain pretty consistent.



Record when leading and behind at the start of the 9th inning

w l w l
tbr 84 2 3 56
bos 85 3 2 58
nyy 77 0 1 64
tor 76 3 2 58
bal 60 2 4 81
chw 78 2 2 66
min 76 2 5 63
cle 74 3 1 67
kcr 66 1 2 79
det 66 4 1 75
laa 86 4 2 51
tex 68 1 3 76
oak 64 3 3 75
sea 51 5 2 87
phi 79 0 6 60
nym 78 7 4 58
fla 66 5 5 66
atl 64 4 3 76
wsn 49 1 1 94
chc 85 5 5 49
mil 74 5 3 57
hou 74 3 4 68
stl 75 6 1 61
cin 59 4 7 77
pit 52 2 6 86
lad 70 4 2 66
ari 74 4 4 67
col 64 4 3 79
sfg 60 0 3 81
sdp 53 2 1 86

2087 91 91 2087
w% 0.958 w% 0.042

[NYMets523]

The Mets had the most losses when leading after the 9th inning. When you miss the playoffs by 1 game. That should tell you how valuable a closer is.

[spark240]

The Mets had the most losses when leading after the 9th inning. When you miss the playoffs by 1 game. That should tell you how valuable a closer is.

Okay, the Mets apparently lost seven games during the opponent ninth, or later. (The chart shows results when leading before the ninth.)

So how many did they lose during each of the other opponent innings? They had 73 losses in all; less the seven, that's 66 games lost in the first through eighth innings, or a mean of 8.25 losses per inning.

So which game, and which inning, made them miss the playoffs? :think:

[NYMets523]

So which game, and which inning, made them miss the playoffs? :think:

The game where Philly scored, I believe 6 runs, against them in the 9th.

[Buczilla]

With 9 games remaining your Mets and the Phillies were tied at 86-68. The Brewers had a record of 84-70. The Phillies finished up 6-3. The Brewers also finished 6-3. Your Mets as you know finished 3-6. The game from July 22nd is irrelevant. In none of those 6 losses did your Mets take a lead into the 9th inning.

[babaganoosh]

This data here pretty much says it all for me when discussing the issue/value of a closer. You can go as far back in time as you want and these numbers remain pretty consistent.



Record when leading and behind at the start of the 9th inning

w l w l
tbr 84 2 3 56
bos 85 3 2 58
nyy 77 0 1 64
tor 76 3 2 58
bal 60 2 4 81
chw 78 2 2 66
min 76 2 5 63
cle 74 3 1 67
kcr 66 1 2 79
det 66 4 1 75
laa 86 4 2 51
tex 68 1 3 76
oak 64 3 3 75
sea 51 5 2 87
phi 79 0 6 60
nym 78 7 4 58
fla 66 5 5 66
atl 64 4 3 76
wsn 49 1 1 94
chc 85 5 5 49
mil 74 5 3 57
hou 74 3 4 68
stl 75 6 1 61
cin 59 4 7 77
pit 52 2 6 86
lad 70 4 2 66
ari 74 4 4 67
col 64 4 3 79
sfg 60 0 3 81
sdp 53 2 1 86

2087 91 91 2087
w% 0.958 w% 0.042





Here's my view on the numbers though. You have 1 inning to make up 8 innings of difference, put other relievers in there and there's still a good chance you will win. I wonder though what the stats are from the beginning to the end of the 8th for holds. It's also a 1-inning interval, should use a solid reliever, and I would bet they come out of 1 inning without blowing 3 run leads the majority of the time. The .958 just tells me that a pitcher doesn't give up 2-4 runs in 1 inning, which isn't saying anything special IMO.

[NYMets523]

With 9 games remaining your Mets and the Phillies were tied at 86-68. The Brewers had a record of 84-70. The Phillies finished up 6-3. The Brewers also finished 6-3. Your Mets as you know finished 3-6. The game from July 22nd is irrelevant. In none of those 6 losses did your Mets take a lead into the 9th inning.

Why is a loss on July 22nd irrelevant?

[Buczilla]

The .958 just tells me that a pitcher doesn't give up 2-4 runs in 1 inning, which isn't saying anything special IMO.

The point that I was trying to make is....what difference does a modern day closer make when over the past 100 years the team heading into the 9th inning with the lead wins roughly the same rate as they do today? The 9th inning specialist is way overrated in my opinion. Switch K-Rod with Brian Wilson, does the outcome of the way their team finishes change much? I don't think so. The only difference would be K-Rod's save count goes down and Wilson's goes up.

[Buczilla]

Why is a loss on July 22nd irrelevant?

Because you responded to spark240 as that being the game that made the Mets miss the playoffs(unless I took your response the wrong way). I was just stating that it was the way the Mets finished up that cost them. A playoff spot was theirs for the taking with 9 to go.

[NYMets523]

Because you responded to spark240 as that being the game that made the Mets miss the playoffs(unless I took your response the wrong way). I was just stating that it was the way the Mets finished up that cost them. A playoff spot was theirs for the taking with 9 to go.
You can pretty much pick any loss, epsecially one in which they blew a lead in the 9th. I picked that one because it was against the Phillies. They would have been up 1 game on the Phillies instead of tied and ahead of the Brewers by 3 games. The losses from March to August were no less significant than those in September.

[DownUnderDodger]

The 9th inning specialist is way overrated in my opinion. Switch K-Rod with Brian Wilson, does the outcome of the way their team finishes change much? I don't think so. The only difference would be K-Rod's save count goes down and Wilson's goes up.
Does the fact that a team puts a pitcher who has been nominated as specialist closer, with a good record, have any psychological effect on batters? Would they feel more at ease if just a regular closer was put up against them in the 9th?

[Buczilla]

Does the fact that a team puts a pitcher who has been nominated as specialist closer, with a good record, have any psychological effect on batters? Would they feel more at ease if just a regular closer was put up against them in the 9th?

You probably know my Pirates have not exactly been setting the world on fire the past 16 years. In the span from 1993-2008 they have won 94% of their games when they have taken a lead into the 9th inning. In the same span the Yankees have won 97% of their games in that same situation. The difference is about one and a half more victories a season, but we will round up and say two. Now I am not saying that all 9th inning specialists are bums, I would be foolish to do so.

I also am not stating that any one Pirate closer was better than Wetteland them two years and Rivera the rest. Also I give Rivera props for being the master of his trade. But when it comes to winning ball games when taking a lead into the 9th inning history shows you pretty much have it in the bag regardless of who you have in there. If we put Rivera on any one of those Pirate teams over the past 16 years, would he have made a world of difference? No. He would be placed in a situation where opportunities for him to be himself wasn't there, on average 22(21.5 to be exact) less 9th inning leads to protect per season.

On a closing note, do you remember that 2003 Tigers team that lost 119 games? That team was bad and their pitching was horrid. To stay with the theme, even they won 95% of the games when taking a lead into the 9th inning.

[plask_stirlac]

It makes sense to use the best guy at the best time but this is psychological. Soriano wouldn't lead off if he hit just as well batting 4th or so.

Someone has to be "there," be the man and close the game. They also get to start more innings clean, so more time to warm up. That's why closers are usually a bit older but settled. Plus there's an adrenaline rush that can help or hurt depending on the mind. They also can serve up more fly balls and some more home runs than the Fireman, see Hawkins and Guardado 02-03.

Rotating closers rarely helps.

Hawkins is a classic example, so erratic as a closer but a top set-up guy. Others are Brad Lidge or K-Rod and went right in.

Performance also just fluctuates. Betancourt might be just as comfortable closing but if his shoulder is jello he's going to be bad either way.