NYT: "The Importance of a Closer Isn't Open to Debate"

[thermos]

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/18/sp...l/18chass.html

Here's a fine example of an article with a conclusion in the headline and the closing paragraph, and no support (or even much in the way of argument) in the body.

[thermos]

Originally Posted by thermos

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/18/sp...l/18chass.html

Here's a fine example of an article with a conclusion in the headline and the closing paragraph, and no support (or even much in the way of argument) in the body.

...and an entirely more cogent counterpoint (such as there may be a point to Chass's article)...

http://www.baseballprospectus.com/ar...articleid=2876

[KCBOOMER]

Sheehan is far solider in his understanding of baseball than Chass will ever be, but it doesn't change the fundamental fact that if you don't get the final three outs of the game you lose. Certainly Sheehan's use of logic is much better than Chass's use of out of context analogies. And it seems like Sheehan ought to be right, but the teams that win the most games seems to be those that have a guy who can close the door in the ninth.

[Craig S.]

I'm not sure if Chass has a point, but he certainly doesn't do much to support his argument.

[thermos]

Originally Posted by KCBOOMER

Sheehan is far solider in his understanding of baseball than Chass will ever be, but it doesn't change the fundamental fact that if you don't get the final three outs of the game you lose. Certainly Sheehan's use of logic is much better than Chass's use of out of context analogies. And it seems like Sheehan ought to be right, but the teams that win the most games seems to be those that have a guy who can close the door in the ninth.

...or the 8th.....or the 7th....or the 1st.

[sweaver]

Whitey Herzog thinks a closer is necessary in today's game.

[SmedIndy]

But any quality ML pitcher can do it. See Nathan, Joe...

[Crash Course]

Originally Posted by SmedIndy

But any quality ML pitcher can do it. See Nathan, Joe...

Xavier Hernandez was a young and "quality ML pitcher" in 1992 and 1993. In 1994, he got a chance to close with the Yankees and bombed. Three years later, he was back in middle relief and returned to being an above average pitcher.

I think that flies in the face of "any quality ML pitcher" being able to do it.

[sweaver]

Who was the Marlins' dominant closer last year? Urbina saved 6 down the stretch. Then 1 in the LDS, 1 in the LCS, 2 in the WS. Was he the deciding factor?

[Crash Course]

Was was the ratio of Sv Opp to Saves gained for the Marlins in the post-season last year?

[SmedIndy]

Originally Posted by Crash Course

Xavier Hernandez was a young and "quality ML pitcher" in 1992 and 1993. In 1994, he got a chance to close with the Yankees and bombed. Three years later, he was back in middle relief and returned to being an above average pitcher.

I think that flies in the face of "any quality ML pitcher" being able to do it.

A. I never thought the "X" man was all that good. Two good seasons, but nothing before or after. If you call his 1995 quality, then your definition and mine are different.

B. You sure he wasn't hurt? He only pitched in 31 games.

C. One example does not a trend make. See Worrell, Tim; Borowski, Joe; Guardado, Eddie.

[SmedIndy]

Originally Posted by sweaver

Who was the Marlins' dominant closer last year? Urbina saved 6 down the stretch. Then 1 in the LDS, 1 in the LCS, 2 in the WS. Was he the deciding factor?

They burned Looper out, but I don't think Urbina was the factor. They had Beckett to close out games!

[KCBOOMER]

Whoever pitches the ninth simply has to get three outs without the tying run scoring. For whatever reason today most relievers can't do that. You don't have to be a great pitcher to do this, but you have to be able to do it.

And no one has demonstrated that todays closer would be effective in earlier innings or coming in with men on base. They simply assume because he can pitch the ninth that he can do the other things.

I think today's pitchers are more comfortable pitching in a "role". When you take them out of their role they suck.

And you can yap until doomsday about "high leveraged innings" you will never change the inalterable fact that you can win a game without having more runs than the other team after nine innings. That in and of itself makes the ninth inning special.

[Crash Course]

That's always been my thing. Working in the 9th, many times, is working without a net. If you screw up the game in the 7th or 8th, your team still has a chance to come back. Screw up the game in the 9th, and it is often GAME OVER. It takes someone with the right stomach lining to work without the net. Not all pitchers can do it.

[thermos]

Originally Posted by KCBOOMER

Whoever pitches the ninth simply has to get three outs without the tying run scoring. For whatever reason today most relievers can't do that.

How do we know that? I doubt that's true. I'm sure it may be true of many releivers, because many relievers are borderline major league pitchers. But most? I think you're confusing cause and result.

I would say certainly most could do it, and if you add in the middle or back of the rotation starters, or better minor leaguer starters, there are probably an awful lot of pitchers who can get 3 outs in 1 inning without 1-3 runs scoring. There probably is some difference between the last 3 outs and 3 outs in any other inning, especially when the opposing manager is playing for 1 run, but the idea that the last 3 outs have some magic quality which requires a certain pitcher annointed the "closer" just doesn't make sense. Plenty of successful "closers" were borderline (or lousy) releivers or starters before they underwent Metemorphisis.