The No Closer Theory

[TimmyB]

Originally posted by cubfan33
I'm not sure Perranoski and (especially) Marshall are good examples. Both were freaks that could pitch insane amounts of innings. Perranoski because of genetics and Marshall due to science. Still, the point is valid - wins and relievers aren't a bad thing. Heck, wins are never a bad thing!

I thought I read in the last year or so that Marshall is convinced that with the proper training (read: his) just about any pitcher could significantly increase the number of innings pitched per year.

[cubfan33]

Marshall does believe his system is perfect. I don't have the requisite scientific knowledge to argue the point and he certainly has the results to back it up. I'll take a scientific approach over many others and think its groundbreaking, but just as I cant poke holes in it, I also can't validate it.

Its definitely worth looking at over on his website at www.drmikemarshall.com, or check out the interview with him over at BP by Jonah Keri.

[sweaver]

Will, I just have to say that your new choice for an avatar disturbs me very deeply, and I will have to seek therapy. I'll send you the bill.

Marshall's theories aside, the tactics that produced the stats cited for Marshall and Perranoski were prevalent through the 1950s-70s, and also produced records of equal quality from Elroy Face, Jim Konstanty, and others. It was not unheard of during that time for the ace reliever to lead the team in wins as well as saves. You brought in the guy when the game was in the balance and the starter in trouble, not with a three-run lead in the ninth. Makes more sense to me, at least if you control the workload to more like 100 innings.

[Husier]

Originally posted by sweaver
Will, I just have to say that your new choice for an avatar disturbs me very deeply, and I will have to seek therapy. I'll send you the bill.

Amen.

Will, dude ... come back to us.

[LisaG]

will,
i'd like your avatar better if he was posed like a sports illustrated swimsuit model- the shorts aren't revealing enough. don't listen to these guys about therapy. nekkid guys are cool. partly nekkid guys, well.......

[TimmyB]

While some of us may be needing "relief" from a certain avatar... does anyone else have anything to add on the subject of "relief" pitching as it pertains to the notion of No Closers?

[cubfan33]

Spoke with Theo today ...

(Wait, sorry ... I'm just enjoying that sentence ...)

... and he talked at length about the "no closer" committee, how it started, who gets credit, and most interestingly, that the players really seem to be on board with it.

Of course, you could hear my convo with him ... like that sneaky plug? ... on BPR this weekend.

[TimmyB]

Originally posted by cubfan33
Spoke with Theo today ...

Dude!

[gyb13]

[don cheadle] when did theo become theo?[/dc]

[OaktownTribeFan]

... and he talked at length about the "no closer" committee, how it started, who gets credit, and most interestingly, that the players really seem to be on board with it.

Respectfully, cubfan33, I'd really like to know exactly which players are on board with it?

Almost every team is still using a designated closer, last time I checked.

And who is this Theo dude?

BTW, cubfan33 that Mike Marshall site is a 404. Do you have a different URL?

[SmedIndy]

That would be Theo Epstein, of the Red Sox.

And just because most teams are doing it doesn't mean it's the best thing to do. Managers tend to lemming...

[TimmyB]

Originally posted by SmedIndy
That would be Theo Epstein, of the Red Sox.

(ahem) His full name is 29 Year Old Theo Epstein.

[OaktownTribeFan]

From the original article:

He (James) says that, according to his computer simulations, when a relief ace pitches at least one inning when the game is tied, say in the seventh inning, a team's winning percentage is .574; when it doesn't happen, the winning percentage drops to near .500.

I know a pretty sharp spreadsheet whiz who did a computer simulation in 1995 using one of Bill James theories, and predicted that Manny Ramirez would hit 800 homers in his career. I'm still waiting for that to happen.

I don't believe we can simulate what will happen if a closer is brought into a game in the 7th inning, with any accuracy that is. Who would the manager bring in later in the game? That's a very risky proposition on most teams, unless they've got multiple closers. And hardly any team has that luxury.

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

OK, so then how do you maximize the use of the closer? You can only use him 3 times a week at the most if you're going to use him for 2 innings.

[SmedIndy]

We can look at game results and model. The methods used in this are sound. The "favorite toy" was a fun projection - not a prediction.

A closer is a misnomer. Pitch your best pitchers.

Any competent major leaguer should be able to hold a lead at any time, in any situation. Specifying one pitcher as a closer is a waste of resources. It's a fallacy. Creeping LaRussaism is the blame for that mindset.

[OaktownTribeFan]

Originally posted by SmedIndy

Any competent major leaguer should be able to hold a lead at any time, in any situation.

It's nice in theory, but there are many pitchers who don't have the mindset to do it. I could point you to one Paul Shuey, for one example. He was great as a setup man, but extremely inconsistent as a closer. There are many, many others who have the same problem. It generally takes a specialist to hold the closer job with any success. Unless a team is lucky enough to have 3 of them, like the 90 Reds. But that lasted about as long as the career of Pete Gray. It's nice in theory, and that's what can be so cool about so many of James's theories. They're like toys to play with, but not realistic.

Specifying one pitcher as a closer is a waste of resources. It's a fallacy. Creeping LaRussaism is the blame for that mindset.

The one-closer practice goes back further than LaRussa. The White Rat and Sutter were exemplifying that in the early 80s. Worked out pretty friggin' well in '82, didn't it.