The No Closer Theory

[Max Power]

In http://www.usatoday.com/sports/baseb...ox-stats_x.htm it reads:

Author Bill James has been pushing for a new relief system for many years. According to his "Valuing Relievers" in The New Bill James Historical Baseball Abstract , he says that one-inning closers are not the optimal way to use a bullpen.

"Far better to use your relief ace when the score is tied, even if that is the seventh inning, than in the ninth inning with a lead of two or more runs," James writes.

He says that each run saved in a tie game has more than eight times the impact of a run saved with a three-run lead.

According to James, the perfect way to use a relief ace:

Two innings a game when the game is tied.

Two innings a game when you have a one-run lead.

One inning at a time in other games when the game is close at the end and the ace hasn't been used for a day or two.

"In other words," he writes, "bring in your man when you're ahead by one after seven innings, when you're tied after seven innings, or when the game is close and the relief ace isn't tired."

I respect this - - but, I think it does not account for human nature.

I've learned many things in my 40 years, and one that I have seen OVER and OVER again (at work, play, and at home) is that MANY, MANY people, no matter how long they are given to do something, will wait to the last minute.

That last minute is a pretty important thing to the human mind, knowing it's there. A great closer, like Mo Rivera or Trevor Hoofman in their prime, takes away that "chance" of having the last minute (in this case the 9th inning). This creates panic, knowing that the last minute is gone and that you now have a greater sense of urgency to get something done before it is too late - - without having your old friend, the last minute, there for you - just in case.

Anyway, it's just a theory. What are you thought on the "no closer" theory?

[nyy26wc]

I disagree.

The winning percentage of teams leading by 1-3 runs is lower during the show up in the 9th inning era than in the past.

If today's "strategy" (which really isn't strategy. Strategy involves actually thinking through your options, rather than mindlessly going through the motions of putting a particular person into the game because that just happened to be his assigned role) optimized the chances of winning, then one would expect a team to win more often, not less.

[Max Power]

Originally posted by nyy26wc
The winning percentage of teams leading by 1-3 runs is lower during the show up in the 9th inning era than in the past.

Last year? Or from another date?

[Max Power]

Just for the fun of it, I just took a lot at all seasons where a P had: SAVES >= 25 and NEUTRAL LOSSES > 5. It's happened 56 times.

LOSSES                        YEAR      L       SV       N_L    
1    Gene Garber              1979       16       25       11   
2    Mike Marshall            1979       15       32        7   
3    Rollie Fingers           1978       13       37        7   
T4   Ron Davis                1984       11       29       10   
T4   Mike Marshall            1973       11       31        8   
T6   Bob Stanley              1983       10       33        6   
T6   Al Holland               1984       10       29        7   
T6   Bruce Sutter             1978       10       27        7   
T6   Doug Jones               1993       10       26        8   
T6   Tom Hume                 1980       10       25        6   
T11  Rollie Fingers           1977        9       35        7   
T11  Todd Worrell             1988        9       32        6   
T11  Jeff Reardon             1986        9       35        9   
T11  Rick Aguilera            1998        9       38        6   
T11  Dave LaRoche             1978        9       25        7   
T11  Minnie Rojas             1967        9       27        9   
T11  Bill Campbell            1977        9       31        6   
T11  Lee Smith                1992        9       43        6   
T11  Dick Radatz              1964        9       29        7   
T11  Ed Farmer                1980        9       30        7   
T11  Bob Wickman              1998        9       25        6   
T11  Hoyt Wilhelm             1964        9       27        6   
T11  Lee Smith                1986        9       31        7   
T24  Jay Howell               1985        8       29        6   
T24  Fred Gladding            1969        8       29        7   
T24  Bruce Sutter             1982        8       36        7   
T24  Mitch Williams           1992        8       29        7   
T24  Joe Page                 1949        8       27        6   
T24  Ugueth Urbina            1997        8       27        6   
T24  Jeff Reardon             1987        8       31        8   
T24  Bobby Thigpen            1988        8       34        6   
T24  Bill Caudill             1983        8       26        6   
T24  Kent Tekulve             1979        8       31        6   
T34  Tom Timmermann           1970        7       27        7   
T34  Kelvim Escobar           2002        7       38        6   
T34  Dan Quisenberry          1980        7       33        7   
T34  Lee Smith                1984        7       33        7   
T34  Dave Righetti            1985        7       29        7   
T34  Bill Caudill             1984        7       36        6   
T34  Randy Myers              1998        7       28        6   
T41  Dennis Eckersley         1995        6       29        6   
T41  Steve Bedrosian          1986        6       29        6   
T41  Steve Bedrosian          1988        6       28        6   
T41  Rod Beck                 1995        6       33        6   
T41  Goose Gossage            1984        6       25        7   
T41  Jim Gott                 1988        6       34        6   
T41  Wayne Granger            1969        6       27        6   
T41  Tug McGraw               1973        6       25        6   
T41  Jesse Orosco             1984        6       31        6   
T41  Dave Righetti            1987        6       31        6   
T41  Mike Stanton             1993        6       27        6   
T52  Phil Regan               1968        5       25        6   
T52  Luis Arroyo              1961        5       29        6   
T52  Roger McDowell           1987        5       25        6   
55   Trevor Hoffman           1995        4       31        6   
56   Robb Nen                 1997        3       35        6 

84% of these seasons were before 1994. Would that suggest that the recent use of closers has less "loss" probability?

[Ytown Tribe fan]

One way to measure the change (if any) is to do a season-by-season chart of Blown Saves (as a percentage of total save opportunities). You could similarly chart Holds.

If the number of Holds per 162 games is going up and the percentage of Blown Saves is also going up, then the current method of bullpen use isn't working.

This is JUST the kind of thing that James will be happy to demonstrate to the Red Sox management, if it's true. And, as always in the past, if just ONE manager changes his strategy successfully, others will follow -- especially if the change is dramatically successful.

[SmedIndy]

No - you're skewing it. Those pitchers were in more tied games and had more chances to lose than todays Desingated Ninth Inning Pitchers.

The Cubs used Sutter for 2+ innings several times, even when the game was tied.

It's a total waste of resources to put an ace reliever in to "save" an 8-5 game with 6,7,8 coming up for the other team.

[RedSeat]

Originally posted by SmedIndy

It's a total waste of resources to put an ace reliever in to "save" an 8-5 game with 6,7,8 coming up for the other team.

Exactly. This is first post in which personnel (6,7,8) is considered. My opinion is that to best use one's bullpen, the manager should consider game situation, who's due up, who's pitching now, who's well-rested. etc. etc. Assigning one reliever the role of pitching the ninth with a one, two or three run lead whenever the situation arises, completely ignores many variables. The downside with actually considering the matchups is that the manager has to manage for all nine innings. Imagine that.

I agree with the no-closer theory, but how would you deal with pitchers who are labelled "closers" with their high salaries, the save statistic etc.? It seems like it would be a somewhat slow and painful process.

[gyb13]

well, the world used to be flat, you know

change is slow, but it comes...

[SmedIndy]

Originally posted by sopclod
I agree with the no-closer theory, but how would you deal with pitchers who are labelled "closers" with their high salaries, the save statistic etc.? It seems like it would be a somewhat slow and painful process.

Tell them to get a real job, or quit complaining!

[JamesI]

Originally posted by SmedIndy
Tell them to get a real job, or quit complaining!

Exactly. The Braves would be much better with Smoltz in the rotation than the 9th.
The Yankees would be better if Rivera pitched when he was needed and not the 9th.

[KCBOOMER]

I kind of waffle on this closer thing. I know the statheads think it is a waste to not use a good pitcher when needed but you know the statheads create a lot of muddy water. Over at BP one of their statheads this morning was dismissing OPS as a bogus stat. And in this case we are dealing with something that is opinion driven rather than numbers driven.

Have many time shave we seen them use the code phrases "that's just luck" or "that's a function of the team" to dismiss another's statistical analysis?

I do know this, somebody has to pitch the ninth inning. I do know that if a good team has a good setup guy and good closer the oppostion feels like they have seven innings in which to score enough runs to win.

I do know that in the "old days" pitchers pitched until they got in trouble rather than being designated to pitch a certain inning or innings. There was no such thing as a left-handed relief specialist (a guy just to get left-handed batters out).

I think the problem is that with today's bloated staffs the quality drop in the eleventh and twelfth pitcher as compared to the ninth and tenth pitcher is pretty severe. You do not want the dregs showing up in the ninth to pitch. I don't think we should lose sight of the fact that being ahead at the end of nine innings is a little more significant than be ahead after any of the previous eight.

Also we are not sure how many more innings we could get out of our closer if we used him more/longer. I think studies have shown that 100 innings of relief work is about like 200 innings of starting. Maybe we should be using closers as closers but using them a little more in the eighth and ninth when the lead is only one or two runs. We keep yapping about closers showing up in the ninth to pitch one inning with a three run lead. Isn't that only the case in one time in three? And every once in a while that three run lead occured in the top of the ninth.

[RedSeat]

I agree with most of that KC. I have no problem using some pitchers just as closers. But I don't think there are 30 of those out there. So if you're not able to get one of the top flight guys who do excel in just that role as it's come to be defined, you shouldn't try to force another type of pitcher to become that show up in the ninth inning guy. Beyond that, when you consider that guys with inflated save totals tend to have inflated contracts as well, there may be better ways to allocate your payroll.

If you have a Rivera or Percival, use him to his strength. But if you don't have one of the elite guys, don't try to make them what they're not.

[SmedIndy]

Boom -

It's a matter of when the high value innings are.

Facing 3-4-5 with a one run lead in the 8th is more pressure packed than the bottom of the order with a three run lead in the 9th.

The main problem is that managers don't manage to the game situation - they manage to the stat - and they manage on rote platoon advantages.

In the AL - if I had a one run lead in the 8th, and my "set up" guy was rested and got them out 1-2-3, then I got a three run lead in the 9th, I'd be tempted to let the set-up guy close it out.

[Max Power]

In a big game, if the 3 outs in the 9th are no more important than the 3 outs in the 8th, why wasn't someone explained that to Armando Benitez yet?