Master Index of Archived Threads


What's the Deal with Closers?

Edgy DC Aug 12 2010 09:45 PM

"What's the deal with closers?" my wife asked me as I tried to explain today's drama. "Has he always been like this?" And so I tried to explain. How the modern closer is the coddled to the point of having nine innings of game strategy built around him. How the announcers, when a team has a four run lead, get excited by the other team coming back to three, because that will be a save situation and he'll get to enter to all this fake drama. How they have AC/DC and Metallica blaring as they enter a game. How they're expected to run on adrenaline and we're expected to celebrate their adrenaline and their intimidating demeanor. How they're supposed to not merely defeat the other team but to bully them into cowed submission. That it's all the syndrome of conquering-jock overindulgence on steroids. And it scarcely has a place in a civil society but there you are, and we should hardly be shocked when these guys who are made heroes for slamming the door really slam the door. "They're bullies because they're handsomely rewarded for being bullies. It's sad when the line becomes blurred, but it shouldn't be all that surprising. Oh, and they don't help the team nearly as much as all the drama suggests." I didn't know where to go from there, or whether I was over-excusing him by explaining to her that this glorious monster is a product of the larger culture and blahblahblah, but I'm really not coming across clearly, and in fact far less clearly than I am here, and then I click a link to somebody's blog, and who says it better than I ever could? Rob Freaking Dibble, that's who? Thank you, Rob Dibble. I don't say that to you often enough.

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Aug 12 2010 10:41 PM Re: What's the Deal with Closers?

Is this football's bleed into baseball?

Number 6 Aug 12 2010 11:40 PM Re: What's the Deal with Closers?

I think you might be going a little over the top with that. I agree completely that the idea of a closer role, a closer's makeup, and especially a closer's "mentality" has a lot of alpha male nonsense baked into it. But in that way it's not so different from many other roles in many other sports. One big difference, as you mention, is that the very idea of a closer being a necessity and the situation in which he's supposed to operate is entirely manufactured, but that's almost another issue entirely. I'd argue that in sports, if not in real life, a little alpha male serves you well in certain situations. I have virtually none of it, and even if I had professional-grade athletic skills I'm quite sure that my mentality would be a handicap, even more so if I operated mainly in a role in which it's perceived that I, and only I, hold the ultimate success/failure of the team's efforts in my hands. It's a really shitty job, honestly; you receive little of the credit when you succeed, and shoulder a ridiculously disproportionate share of the blame when you fail. Hubris, extreme competitiveness, the desire to dominate, and especially the ability to not let failure disrupt your narrative are all useful tools in that sort of role. As Rob Dibble and K-Rod demonstrate, though, that mentality makes you a total twat in real life.

Fman99 Aug 13 2010 01:16 AM Re: What's the Deal with Closers?

I continue to blame LaRussa and Eckersley for the 9th inning, three out "closer." Most of these guys couldn't carry Rollie Fingers' jock.

Benjamin Grimm Aug 13 2010 04:20 AM Re: What's the Deal with Closers?

Fman99 wrote: I continue to blame LaRussa and Eckersley for the 9th inning, three out "closer." Me too.

G-Fafif Aug 13 2010 04:31 AM Re: What's the Deal with Closers?

Fman99 wrote: I continue to blame LaRussa and Eckersley for the 9th inning, three out "closer." Most of these guys couldn't carry Rollie Fingers' jock. Actually, it's pretty easy to carry Rollie Fingers' jock, as I understand it comes equipped with handlebars.

Edgy DC Aug 13 2010 05:46 AM Re: What's the Deal with Closers?

Number 6 wrote: I think you might be going a little over the top with that. It was late. My adrenaline was pumping. I had The Cult's "Love Removal Machine" cued up. Number 6 wrote: As Rob Dibble and K-Rod demonstrate, though, that mentality makes you a total twat in real life. Indeed. It's worth noting, that for all my overstatement, what I don't say is that, in addition to this, Rodriguez in his short tenure as a Met had already been in at least four altercations (that we know of) that were escalating toward violence when cooler heads intevened. I'm trying to suggest that something more is feeding into this than the ninth-inning privilige, but Sutter had been reduced almost exclusively to ninth innings by 1980 or 1981. Gossage too, though my years may be off by one or two here or there.

Frayed Knot Aug 13 2010 06:29 AM Re: What's the Deal with Closers?

I remember back when the prevailing thought among Met fans wanted Franco out as closer and Benitez (then in his first NYM season) in, I think that, more even than expected results, it had to do with Armando's perceived demeanor & pitching style fitting their idea of what a closer should represent far more than did the nibbling and soft-tossing Franco. Even on nights where a horrible Benitez 8th inning preceded an ultimately successful Franco 9th, simply the fact that Johnny allowed a base-runner or worked himself into an unfavorable count would trigger the talk radio crowd to scream for an immediate role reversal. That Frankie Rod also fits that high-adrenaline, hard-throwing mold made him a "must get" in the minds of many, including those wearing suits in NYM offices. btw, big, bad Jonathan Papelbon and even bigger, badder (well, certainly bigger) Jonathan Broxton both blew "gimme" saves yesterday. Papelbon coughed up a 2-run lead while only recording 1 out, while Broxton gave up 4 runs (3 earned) without recording any. - Papelbon: 2B, 1B, SB, 1B, K, 2B, IW -- at which point he was pulled in favor a Daniel Bard who gave up a bases-loaded/game-losing Sac Fly - Broxton: HBP, BB, BB, E5 (2 runs), 2B (2 runs) -- the problem with thinking about removing him was that he was already the sixth LAD pitcher of the night

Ceetar Aug 13 2010 07:10 AM Re: What's the Deal with Closers?

My fiance dislikes K-Rod. She always cringes and complains when Manuel brings him in. (I'm doing a good job here. When we first started dating she problem didn't even know what a closer was. Now she recognizes new faces on the team, says things like "Wigginton? He used to be a Met right?) Still, I do think that the 9th inning is the place for the best reliever, and I do believe Frankie is that. My biggest complaint is the tendency to manage to the rule, such as not bringing him in in the 8th the other day, or pulling a starter, or even an effective reliever, for him. Parnell pitches a 1-2-3 8th in 11 pitches I'd leave him in. He's overpaid, surely, but he is one of the few guys that will be consistently good. This isn't like giving a three year deal to Schoeneweis, or other middling relievers. You're really paying more to have the one, solid, pitcher that you can trust out of the bullpen. At least Frankie's a guy that likes to pitch, doesn't mind throwing every day, and wouldn't be unhappy or ineffective with 80+ innings were someone so bold to use him that way.

Edgy DC Aug 13 2010 07:31 AM Re: What's the Deal with Closers?

Ceetar wrote: Still, I do think that the 9th inning is the place for the best reliever, and I do believe Frankie is that. Or the eighth or the seventh is that's when a team most needs him. My biggest complaint is the tendency to manage to the rule, such as not bringing him in in the 8th the other day, Exactly. or pulling a starter, Mercy, yes. or even an effective reliever, for him. Parnell pitches a 1-2-3 8th in 11 pitches I'd leave him in. No-brainers. And this speaks to my other tedious post about kowtowing and deference. If they play this way, and win, in a matter of weeks, nobody would know that there was any other way to go. K-Rod might get 24 saves instead of 38, but 2-4 other pitchers would get 3-9, and no poor eighth-inning fool would be asked to pitch every day. And if the "best" reliever was pitching poorly, other guys would be avialable. He's overpaid, surely, but he is one of the few guys that will be consistently good. I disagree here. This feeds the myth of gods and mortals in the bullpen that creates the pattern of deference. This isn't like giving a three year deal to Schoeneweis, or other middling relievers. It's something worse than a waste of money. It's a culture of macho bullshit that hurts teams and hurts society. Funny thing is that for all the macho muscle flexing, he doesn't throw that hard. Parnell throws harder and I imagine one-two other guys in the Metpen this year do as well. It's the attitude, rather than the actual heat, that he's selling.

Benjamin Grimm Aug 13 2010 07:48 AM Re: What's the Deal with Closers?

What was the story behind the Red Sox "bullpen by committee" from a few years ago? I don't recall the details, but as I remember it, they tried to break this nonsensical designated closer pattern and were widely ridiculed for it. It didn't meet with immediate success and was abandoned fairly quickly. I do remember that I was really rooting for it to work in the hope that it would usher us into a new era of bullpen strategy. (Or, perhaps, back to the old era.) The fact that it "failed", however, seems to have been a major setback to anyone else looking to "innovate" in a similar manner. I often think of the early days of Hollywood movies, when the studios tried to prevent the actors from becoming stars in an effort to keep their salaries down. They didn't put their names in the credits, which is why Clara Bow got nicknamed "The It Girl" (because nobody at the time knew her name). Modern MLB executives and managers, on the other hand, are doing the exact opposite when it comes to ninth-inning pitchers. They create this artificial need, hype the players who get put in this role, and pay them tens of millions of dollars. I guess teams are all looking for the next Mariano Rivera, thinking that that would get them four World Series wins in five years. But he's an anomaly, very very few pitchers have consistent success as a closer for 15 years. And I think Rivera might very well have had an even more productive career if he had been starting 34 games per season.

John Cougar Lunchbucket Aug 13 2010 07:57 AM Re: What's the Deal with Closers?

As I recall it Theo Epstein was only trying to put into play some of the same things we'd consider best practices here -- that is, not going out and wasting $$ on a Name closer to replace Keith Foulke, but rather, gather some good arms cheap and see what happens. And that didn't fail necessarily since Papelbon eventually emerged: Yes, he's a jerk and gives their fans heart attacks, but you could have two of him for what the Mets are paying K-Rod. Ironically, Rodriguez was a bargain only when he pitched for he Angels.

Frayed Knot Aug 13 2010 08:07 AM Re: What's the Deal with Closers? Edited 2 time(s), most recently on Aug 13 2010 08:14 AM

Benjamin Grimm wrote: What was the story behind the Red Sox "bullpen by committee" from a few years ago? I don't recall the details, but as I remember it, they tried to break this nonsensical designated closer pattern and were widely ridiculed for it. It didn't meet with immediate success and was abandoned fairly quickly. The "experiment" failed, but it failed because their relievers all had shitty years not necessarily because of how they were used. It was 2003, and while BY Kim was their nominal closer, no one had more than 15 saves and the work was spread around among several. Problem was, there were so many who pre-decided that the whole concept was wrong that the fault for the failure almost automactially got pinned on the system and the Sox quickly reverted to form by signing Keith Foulke for huge cash at the end of that year. Foulke, armed with a four-year deal, had one good year and three lousy and/or injury-filled ones. But because that one year was the WS year of 2004, Foulke will be dubbed forever 'worth it' and the abandonment of the 'committee' approach was seen as the key to winning. By 2006 Papelbon was being groomed for the role but at least he was cheap and replaceable if lousy, unlike Foulke who had to be carried on the payroll for three seasons after his 'sell by' date had expired. Be interesting, btw, to see what the Sox decide to do with Papelbon. He's one year away from FA-gency and going to get even more expensive next year than he already is ($9+ mil) even as he's not having as good a year. They've got a lot of holes to fill next year and he could be prime bait to fetch some bodies (hopefully not from us). Plus, in Daniel Bard, they might already have a slide-in replacement.

Willets Point Aug 13 2010 08:08 AM Re: What's the Deal with Closers?

John Cougar Lunchbucket wrote: As I recall it Theo Epstein was only trying to put into play some of the same things we'd consider best practices here -- that is, not going out and wasting $$ on a Name closer to replace Keith Foulke, but rather, gather some good arms cheap and see what happens. And that didn't fail necessarily since Papelbon eventually emerged: Yes, he's a jerk and gives their fans heart attacks, but you could have two of him for what the Mets are paying K-Rod. Ironically, Rodriguez was a bargain only when he pitched for he Angels. I could have sworn that this experiment happened earlier, after the Sox lost Tom Gordon.

Edgy DC Aug 13 2010 08:14 AM Re: What's the Deal with Closers?

Frayed Knot wrote: Plus, in Daniel Bard, they might already have a slide-in replacement. Do they play "Battleship Chains" when he enters the game?

Ceetar Aug 13 2010 08:19 AM Re: What's the Deal with Closers?

Also there seems to be a little bit of a safety net built in. Starters, even if it's subconsciously, start thinking 8IP is okay. Then they start thinking 7 is okay if they've got a good bullpen. It's no longer about keeping your best pitchers in until they're legitimately tired or struggling. And the cycle continues because if you only throw 100 pitches for a month, you _will_ be tired when you reach that point again. It's funny how we treat relievers as being 'overworked' when they approach 80 innings, yet that's less than half of what most starters throw. I'm not sure you can get away from egos and one pitcher making a lot more and all that. It's sorta the nature of competition and what not, but on the other hand, you perpetuate it by continuing along these lines, and it makes it harder to bring in someone different if it's a save situation. Look at closers in non-saves, Putz in the 8th, even Mariano struggles in tie games. (who, btw, was a big part of those 4 championships but hardly the defining part. Even were some team to find one, it doesn't guarantee anything and I'd be willing to bet the Yankees probably win those 4 if they had a guy more like Frankie or Wagner) Is this a result of their egos being bruised, however slightly, by being forced to pitch outside of their narrow little box?

Edgy DC Aug 13 2010 08:30 AM Re: What's the Deal with Closers?

I don't believe that last part for a minute. And it just perpetuates the kowtowing to allow these guys to spread the myth that the ninth-inning save situation makes them better pitchers. Putz was dealing with an injury. And then Jerry started pitching him three days in four until his arm failed him. And then he did the same thing seven other guys.

Ceetar Aug 13 2010 08:35 AM Re: What's the Deal with Closers?

Edgy DC wrote: I don't believe that last part for a minute. And it just perpetuates the kowtowing to allow these guys to spread the myth that the ninth-inning save situation makes them better pitchers. Putz was dealing with an injury. And then Jerry started pitching him three days in four until his arm failed him. And then he did the same thing seven other guys. Do the numbers support it? (I'm at work, not going to do some in depth research right now) I know Mariano's worst opponent OPS is in tie situations, significantly. However, you do get a lot of IBBs in tie games on the road to set up double plays or matchups and the like, so maybe that's not the best stat to use. Wagner always seemed more ineffective in non-saves, and has bitched about it. Frankie actually seems to be better though, less base runners, to my recent perception anyway.

John Cougar Lunchbucket Aug 13 2010 08:36 AM Re: What's the Deal with Closers?

Willets Point wrote: As I recall it Theo Epstein was only trying to put into play some of the same things we'd consider best practices here -- that is, not going out and wasting $$ on a Name closer to replace Keith Foulke, but rather, gather some good arms cheap and see what happens. And that didn't fail necessarily since Papelbon eventually emerged: Yes, he's a jerk and gives their fans heart attacks, but you could have two of him for what the Mets are paying K-Rod. Ironically, Rodriguez was a bargain only when he pitched for he Angels. I could have sworn that this experiment happened earlier, after the Sox lost Tom Gordon. You are right.

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Aug 13 2010 08:37 AM Re: What's the Deal with Closers?

John Cougar Lunchbucket wrote: As I recall it Theo Epstein was only trying to put into play some of the same things we'd consider best practices here -- that is, not going out and wasting $$ on a Name closer to replace Keith Foulke, but rather, gather some good arms cheap and see what happens. And that didn't fail necessarily since Papelbon eventually emerged: Yes, he's a jerk and gives their fans heart attacks, but you could have two of him for what the Mets are paying K-Rod. Ironically, Rodriguez was a bargain only when he pitched for he Angels. Frayed Knot wrote: By 2006 Papelbon was being groomed for the role but at least he was cheap and replaceable if lousy, unlike Foulke who had to be carried on the payroll for three seasons after his 'sell by' date had expired. Be interesting, btw, to see what the Sox decide to do with Papelbon. He's one year away from FA-gency and going to get even more expensive next year than he already is ($9+ mil) even as he's not having as good a year. They've got a lot of holes to fill next year and he could be prime bait to fetch some bodies (hopefully not from us). Plus, in Daniel Bard, they might already have a slide-in replacement. Oh, to hear the fanbase, look at the usage patterns, and consider how the Sawx handle stuff like this in the Days of Epstein... it's Bard all the way. Papelbon... Bard... the 2-3 other arms they could stick in there behind those two within a few months... all domestic, eh?

Number 6 Aug 13 2010 11:32 AM Re: What's the Deal with Closers?

Edgy DC wrote: I had The Cult's "Love Removal Machine" cued up. Say no more.

Zvon Aug 13 2010 01:39 PM Re: What's the Deal with Closers?

Nice opening Edge and, imo, very well said. Fman99 wrote: I continue to blame LaRussa and Eckersley for the 9th inning, three out "closer." Most of these guys couldn't carry Rollie Fingers' jock. Or Tug McGraws, even. Number 6 wrote: Edgy DC wrote: I had The Cult's "Love Removal Machine" cued up. Say no more. Agreed # 1 and 2. Very interesting and deep thread that does, I think, say many justified things in relation to the state of the game today.