I can't wait till the season starts (CLOSER DISCUSSION)

I can't wait until the season starts so we can have the "closers should pitch more than one inning" argument thats somehow eluded these threads for a few months. Its been way too long.....and the forum is greatly lacking because of it.

I saw an article in Sports Weekly where Dan Wheeler was saying how great it was that TB has gotten Soriano to anchor the closer position and bring stability and defined roles to the bullpen. No longer are they looking over their shoulder wondering who's going to get the call and when. How dare they speak of the "mental aspect" that the statheads call a ficticious "strawman".

Anyhow...thought it was an interesting piece. Surely the discussion will come up in the next few months, so i'll bring it up then. :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dickay

Anyhow...thought it was an interesting piece. Surely the discussion will come up in the next few months, so i'll bring it up then. :D

---

So, if you're going to bring it up later, isn't this thread pointless?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 200tang

So, if you're going to bring it up later, isn't this thread pointless?

---

I was just stating my eager anticipation for the start of the season, and the great discussion it brings :D

far from pointless

o

Rabble Rabble Rabble

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dickay

I can't wait until the season starts so we can have the "closers should pitch more than one inning" argument thats somehow eluded these threads for a few months. Its been way too long.....and the forum is greatly lacking because of it.

I saw an article in Sports Weekly where Dan Wheeler was saying how great it was that TB has gotten Soriano to anchor the closer position and bring stability and defined roles to the bullpen. No longer are they looking over their shoulder wondering who's going to get the call and when. How dare they speak of the "mental aspect" that the statheads call a ficticious "strawman".

Anyhow...thought it was an interesting piece. Surely the discussion will come up in the next few months, so i'll bring it up then. :D

---

If they all think about it, but it doesn't affect their on field performance, does it actually happen?

Just proposing the hypothetical.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by haveacigar

If they all think about it, but it doesn't affect their on field performance, does it actually happen?

Just proposing the hypothetical.

---

true. the closer by committee approach never has worked because they were all crappy arms to begin with....and the millionaires across all MLB teams that devise bullpens with defined roles do so consistently out of ignorance and their strong desire to give the closer more statistical leverage (padded saves) to seek a larger contract from said team in the future.

There is no "mental aspect" to the game, surely not to a relief pitcher. And if there is, no way does it affect their on field performance. Just ask Mark Wohlers and/or Rick Ankiel, and/or any of the dozens of arms that let their head get in the way of being the pitcher they once were. ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dickay

true. the closer by committee approach never has worked because they were all crappy arms to begin with

---

Tampa's top 5 relievers last year.

Howell - 2.84 ERA/17 SV
Cormier - 3.26 ERA/2 SV
Balfour - 4.81 ERA/4 SV
Wheeler - 3.28 ERA/2 SV
Choate - 3.47 ERA/5 SV

Crappy arms + closer by committee definitely didn't work. Those numbers are terrible for a bullpen.

Quote:

---

There is no "mental aspect" to the game, surely not to a relief pitcher. And if there is, no way does it affect their on field performance. Just ask Mark Wohlers and/or Rick Ankiel, and/or any of the dozens of arms that let their head get in the way of being the pitcher they once were. ;)

---

Of course there's a mental aspect. The game isn't played by robots.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 200tang

Tampa's top 5 relievers last year.

Howell - 2.84 ERA/17 SV
Cormier - 3.26 ERA/2 SV
Balfour - 4.81 ERA/4 SV
Wheeler - 3.28 ERA/2 SV
Choate - 3.47 ERA/5 SV

Crappy arms + closer by committee definitely didn't work. Those numbers are terrible for a bullpen.




Of course there's a mental aspect. The game isn't played by robots.

---

why don't we listen to the actual people who pitched there?

Quote:

---

"I think there's a real benefit of the trickle-down effect," executive vice president Andrew Friedman said.

The Rays tried it, and tried it, and tried it, without a true closer last season — at least not after Troy Percival wore out in May — and it showed. Relying on manager Joe Maddon's matchup style and riding Howell until he wore down, they had a major-league-high nine pitchers record saves, their 22 blown saves were third most in the AL and their 65.1 save percentage ranked eighth.

Also telling: Their relievers worked an AL-low 4571/3 innings but made a league-high 510 appearances.

The plan was taxing physically and mentally as the relievers had to prepare for numerous situations on a nightly, and sometimes several times a night, basis. "I think that kind of took its toll on us last year," Wheeler said. "If you can gear up for one area, it's not as draining."

---

Quote:

---

"I think one of the problems we had last year was that those guys in the bullpen didn't really have a role, they didn't really understand when they were coming in," he said. "Having Soriano, knowing we're going to have a closer, these guys are going to feel a little more comfortable."

That comfort factor is important, Wheeler said, suggesting a return to the format that worked so well for much of the 2008 championship season — matchups early and Percival at the end.

"It will help us out knowing if we have a lead in the ninth inning we're not going to have to have a couple guys up," Wheeler said. "We're going to have one guy going out there — win or lose, he's our guy."

---

http://www.tampabay.com/sports/baseb...entire/1072055

my point is and always has been....having a set bullpen with defined roles is far better than leaving things unknown and going with the best guy for longer periods, as has been the position of statheads in these and other forums for awhile now. A set closer, a guy who pitches in the save situations is better for the team in the long run, even if he's not the best pitcher in the bullpen. He's best suited for that role.

In the short run, a short playoff series...fine. Pitching Mariano or your best arm two or three innings without regard of the save situation is smarter. Its a short series. Over the course of a season its taxing on the rest of the bullpen as they don't know their roles and that plays upon them mentally and physically. As was the case with the Rays last year.

There's a reason why all MLB teams do it this way....and its surely not to overvalue the contracts of closers. Thats rediculous. Wheeler and the article explain it well.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dickay

There is no "mental aspect" to the game, surely not to a relief pitcher. And if there is, no way does it affect their on field performance. Just ask Mark Wohlers and/or Rick Ankiel, and/or any of the dozens of arms that let their head get in the way of being the pitcher they once were. ;)

---

Yep. That's what haveacigar said. No mental aspect whatsoever. :rolleyes:

Here's an idea: It's possible to define roles by something other than the inning and score. MLB players are big boys. I'm sure their fragile minds aren't going to be shattered if put into roles besides "7th inning", "8th inning" or "save situation."

The issue isn;t that relievers/closers should pitch more than one inning, nor is it that should have defined roles.

If a pitcher is only effective for one inning then that's fine have them pitch one inning.

The issue is that managers/pitchers or too defines in their roles based on things not related to winning. Whether it be (as HGM pointed out) "7th inning" or "Save situation".

Manager refuse to move outside the box and have the most effective pitcher pitch at the best times. If that means bringing in a close for 4 outs, instead of three.. do it.

A 'closer' should be available to pitch near the end of the game at the most important point. and sometimes thats with 2 outs and 2 on in the 8th,

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoustonGM

Yep. That's what haveacigar said. No mental aspect whatsoever. :rolleyes:

Here's an idea: It's possible to define roles by something other than the inning and score. MLB players are big boys. I'm sure their fragile minds aren't going to be shattered if put into roles besides "7th inning", "8th inning" or "save situation."

---

why must you constantly put words in peoples mouths? Where did I say that haveacigar said that? Oh....you must have missed the following sentence in that same post which begun with, "And if there is". He said, "does it actually happen"...which means it does, or it doesn't. He followed with a point that if it does it doesn't make a difference. Stop trying to create controversy by saying people say things when they don't.

Anyway...the point is rediculous to me. If one believes there is a mental aspect, as most all RP's that have broached this subject that i've heard have said....and that uncertainty of roles can be mentally and even physically exhausting...then how can one believe that it has no effect on performance? In every aspect of life, being mentally exhausted will have negative effects on performance.

Now to your, recreate or redefine different roles. How do you propose doing this? Whats the magical solution that every MLB team has been unable to find in the last 15 years or so? Its not just 7th, 8th, or 9th inning save guys, there's specialists for certain situations, etc.etc. If you wish to go back to the days of Rollie Fingers and Goose Gossage (which claiming they were successful pitching longer periods is something i've heard you claim before), than you'll have to explain how it will be implemented in a far different climate. Starters pitch substantially less innings today than in their days. There are substantially more middle relief innings that need to be accounted for, thus a need for more and more quality relief pitchers. Pitching one or two guys, your best guys..more frequently..leaves less innings for others in the bullpen, leaves less confidence with them and that mental exhaustion. If you don't need them fine...but over the course of 162 games in todays game of low pitch counts than you most certainly will need them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gRYFYN1

The issue isn;t that relievers/closers should pitch more than one inning, nor is it that should have defined roles.

If a pitcher is only effective for one inning then that's fine have them pitch one inning.

The issue is that managers/pitchers or too defines in their roles based on things not related to winning. Whether it be (as HGM pointed out) "7th inning" or "Save situation".

Manager refuse to move outside the box and have the most effective pitcher pitch at the best times. If that means bringing in a close for 4 outs, instead of three.. do it.

A 'closer' should be available to pitch near the end of the game at the most important point. and sometimes thats with 2 outs and 2 on in the 8th,

---

and thats my point, exactly what i take issue with. that shows a lack of confiidence in the other pitchers, and upsets the defined roles. As wheeler said, pitchers look over the shoulders and don't know when they will be called upon. In a short series or a crucial late season game...fine. Risky but fine. Over the course of 162 games its a bad philosophy. Almost all teams in MLB and every pitcher i've seen discuss it have agreed. Pitchers are creatures of habit, we all are to a point.

Its not the "closers" job to pitch in a non-save situation. Thats someone elses. If you put him in that could have negative results on the entire bullpen. Yes HGM, "they are big boys". But even big boys have egos, and warming up and not getting the call...seeing someone else on the mound in what you thought was your spot...can and will effect their psyche and confidence. Periodically, once in awhile...fine. Make a habit of it or try to roll with it as strategy for a full season and it'll fail. Miserably.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dickay

There are substantially more middle relief innings that need to be accounted for, thus a need for more and more quality relief pitchers. Pitching one or two guys, your best guys..more frequently..leaves less innings for others in the bullpen, leaves less confidence with them and that mental exhaustion

---

Or, you don't need to carry 12 or 13 pitchers and can use those slots that would be filled by those relievers with shattered confidences to add depth to your bench.

I want my best reliever for the situation pitching for me in the given situation. If Justin Morneau, Joe Mauer and Jason Kubel are due up against my team in the 9th inning in a game where my team has a 1-3 run lead, I'm going to use Pedro Feliciano and his career 2.72 FIP against lefties over "proven closer" Fernando Rodney and his career 4.36 FIP against lefties. If that shatters Fernando Rodney's confidence to the point that he's no longer able to pitch well in situations where he's needed, perhaps he should look into another line of work. I'll take the better chance of winning. If it's a tie game, my goal is to keep it that way and give my offense the easiest chance to take the lead. To further that goal, I want my best pitcher pitching - if that's the 8th inning, I'm not going to use Alfredo Aceves if Mariano Rivera is available because Mariano Rivera gives the team the best chance to win.

I don't see why relievers are such a different animal than every other player. Bench position players don't know exactly when they're going to be needed in a game. We don't have an epidemic of shattered confidences and egos of backup position players. The game survived many years without roles being defined by innings and save situations - yes, less relief innings were needed but I don't see why more relief innings means that all of a sudden relief pitchers need to know the exact inning they're going to be coming in and being used outside of that inning is going to ruin them.

Alex Cora went on the DL with a shattered confidence several times in his bench career.

I know several relievers who had absolutely no idea when they would be used. They weren't expecting to be used at all, actually. And they did awesome, considering. Those relievers were:
Nick Green
Dave McCarty
Cody Ross

If game situations can change momentarily - say, a 3-run lead can become a tie game with one swing of the bat - I'm not sure how much stability I would glean from knowing my set role.

On the other side, I can see having Papelbon be anointed 'closer' means he knows that, if its a tight game, to begin stretching in the 6th, and warmup his arms in the 7th, get ready to toss in the bullpen in the 8th.

But even if you have a few set roles - closer, long man, setup, lefty specialist - 3 or 4 guys are gonne be middle relievers or mopups guys with less of a defined role. They could be called in in the 3rd when the starter is rocked, or in the 7th in a blowout. How much mental stability they can glean from that 'role' is questionable in my mind.

I think, like anyone with a job, relievers would ideally like to know their exact, defined role - but that can be extremely hard to pin down, given a fluctuating game situation, who is rested, who is 'on' that day, etc. The whole controversy seems to be much ado about very little, but hey, I'm not a major league reliever.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dickay

and thats my point, exactly what i take issue with. that shows a lack of confiidence in the other pitchers, and upsets the defined roles.

---

This isn't little league or AYSO, we don't need to constantly build up people's self esteem. Baseball players know that there are better players than them, or they would all ask for 10 million in arby.
If there are bases loaded in the 8th and I have Papelbon and a random "8th inning guy" to choose from, I'm sending out Papelbon.
If the other reliever can't understand why, and he is no longer an effective pitcher because of his destroyed confidence then I'll just get a pitcher who is.

While it's nice for stability if every knew exactly when and where and the situation in which they would pitch, that's infeasible.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dickay

true. the closer by committee approach never has worked because they were all crappy arms to begin with....and the millionaires across all MLB teams that devise bullpens with defined roles do so consistently out of ignorance and their strong desire to give the closer more statistical leverage (padded saves) to seek a larger contract from said team in the future.

There is no "mental aspect" to the game, surely not to a relief pitcher. And if there is, no way does it affect their on field performance. Just ask Mark Wohlers and/or Rick Ankiel, and/or any of the dozens of arms that let their head get in the way of being the pitcher they once were. ;)

---

Bingo. The 900 pound elephant in the room: economics and player agents. My player is worth X dollars because he performs the Y role in your team's bullpen. Period. End of story. I don't know how you can't see that the more saves a reliever accrues the more money he gets, despite the fact that the save is right up there with RBI and wins in the "dumbest stat in baseball" category. That means that economics is the biggest reason for defined roles in bullpens.

Even though it would make more sense to bring Mo in in a close game with the bases loaded and nobody out in the 7th (a very high leverage situation), a manager will select his 3rd or 4th best option, or flip-flop with matchups to try and get through to Mo by which time, he may no longer have the lead (provided of course that the opposition can hold the Yanks juggernaut offense off the board ;) ) and then he can hand the ball off to Mo with nobody out and nobody on to start the ninth. In any other business endeavour that would be called wasting a valuable resource, but in baseball it's called deploying bullpen resources in their defined roles. What you should really be advocating dickay is for a better way to determine what relievers should make the most money, by using better metrics than (ugh :( ) saves. But it's more fun to stomp your feet and rail against statheads and their silly stats. :rolleyes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoustonGM

I don't see why relievers are such a different animal than every other player. Bench position players don't know exactly when they're going to be needed in a game. We don't have an epidemic of shattered confidences and egos of backup position players. The game survived many years without roles being defined by innings and save situations - yes, less relief innings were needed but I don't see why more relief innings means that all of a sudden relief pitchers need to know the exact inning they're going to be coming in and being used outside of that inning is going to ruin them.

---

They're not a different animal. It happens with everyone. There was a minor controversy last year when Prince threw a hissy fit cause Macha wanted to bat him in the 3 spot. He said he wasn't comfortable in the three spot. Personally I think a good player should be able to succeed anywhere. But I think a good a manager tries and keep his players happy, within reason of course. In theory a happy worker is a more productive worker....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MichelleWie

They're not a different animal. It happens with everyone. There was a minor controversy last year when Prince threw a hissy fit cause Macha wanted to bat him in the 3 spot. He said he wasn't comfortable in the three spot. Personally I think a good player should be able to succeed anywhere. But I think a good a manager tries and keep his players happy, within reason of course. In theory a happy worker is a more productive worker....

---

Ah yes, the disparity in salary between the superstars and the manager phenomenon. Grow the fu(k up Prince. Don't you know you'll get more plate appearances?