I will *NEVER* understand the way managers use closers.

Search

New member
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
334
Tokens
The way managers use their closers always has, and always will, befuddle me.

Take the Dodgers. Excellent 'pen, top to bottom. But without question, their best pitcher is the untouchable Eric Gagne.

Tonight, bottom of the 7th, 5-5 tie, go-ahead runners on 2nd and 3rd with 1 out. Dodgers desperately need a K. Gagne's got 42 K's in 30+ innings of work. And who do the Dodgers bring in...

...Darren Dreifort.

Last night. Guillermo Mota pitching the 9th and struggling, giving up hits and walks. Bases loaded for the Giants, 2-2 tie. Base hit wins the game. Gagne sitting on his a$$ in the pen...and the Dodgers don't bring him in. Same story in earlier innings (7th or 8th...don't remember exactly when, but it was late game), Dodgers don't bring in their top reliever with the Giants threatening.

WHY?! WHY WHY WHY?! Where is it written in the MLB rulebook that the pitcher the team has designated as its closer CANNOT come into the game unless it's a close game in the 9th, with your team leading. It's so incredibly asinine; managers hold back their closers in the 6th, 7th, and 8th innings...in game-turning situations, run-threatening situations, in the hopes that their team will somehow stave off the threat, come back to take the lead and give their closer a chance to pick up a save.

Seems more often than not though, because inferior pitchers are brought in, the team loses its lead and the closer doesn't have a chance to come in at all.

Happened last night in LA/SF, and will likely happen tonight too.

Why is a run in the 8th less valuable than a run in the 9th? What's the point in saving someone for a situation he'll never enter? Instead of taking a chance with your subpar crap NOW, in the hopes of bringing your closer in LATER -- thereby ensuring your crap the chance to pitch and only *POSSIBLY* having your great one pitch -- why not allow the closer to come in and throw in the 7th inning if the opposition is threatening? That way, you GUARANTEE your good pitcher will pitch, and your crappy pitcher will only MAYBE pitch.

I don't get it at all. I understand the concept of having a defined role for your pitchers, so they know when they'll be expected to come in...but these kinds of stupid, game-throwing away moves that most managers seem to engage in prevent closers from getting the work they need.
 

New member
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
88
Tokens
dogs,

You hit the nail on the head with this one. I am assuming you have read or if you didnt you should read Bill James excellent anaylsis on the use of closers. Managers blow this all the time. Past study of games showed the "real value" of closers is when the team is tied or ahead or behind by 1 run. That is when you "need" your best reliever, (who as you so accurately point out is normally an above average strike out pitcher)

The biggest unknown by most folks is when a team was ahead by 3 runs going into the 9th, "any reliever saved the game 90+ percent of the time. 2 runs was relatively high also.

Up into this year two teams that had done a great job with this was San Diego and Oakland. It was no surprise to see people like Hoffman or Foulke last year with 10 wins AND 35-40 saves. They were brought in in tie ball games.

They held and their teams won.
 

Member
Joined
Sep 20, 2001
Messages
4,009
Tokens
I think its so that when the team is ahead they know they wont blow a lead with a tired closer.

True it does seem to minimize the importance of trying to win a tie game but on the other hand it does make sense to me that they only want to use a closer sparingly - in just the right situations where the team would win if no more runs get scored.

That way everyone else gets work also.


I have felt the way you do about starters throughout the season. I know its done some in the playoffs but I'd like to see starters filtered in on their off days more often. Do guys really benefit that much from 5 to 7 days rest? I know that you gotta give the older guys a break but I think someone like lowe (especially since he has experience) should be available after a few days rest every now and then to give an inning or even close one out if necessary. Wakefield is the only one that I know of who does it pretty regularly - and I guess I can see schilling (with the ankle) and pedro (with the ego problem) wanting the time off - but arroyo and lowe should be rotating relief appearances in between starts I think...
 

New member
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
334
Tokens
I have not read Bill James' piece, but I'm glad I'm not the only one who's noticed this. It's eminently frustrating, both from a gambler's and from a baseball fan's perspective, to see this happen night in and night out in games around the league.

It's almost as if managers feel that a run scored in the 6th or 7th doesn't count as much as a run scored in the 9th. With the bases loaded in a tight game, they'll bring in the subpar reliever because...well, it isn't the 9th, so why use the closer? Instead of using him now, when his strike out prowess would be highly beneficial, let's save him for later, when we might have already been blown out because this journeyman middle reliever gave up a grand slam. And then the closer never gets a chance to pitch and...

ahh..I'm repeating myself. I said all this above.

It's interesting to note that there's SOME variety in the way managers utilize their closers. Some WILL bring in their closers in the 8th inning, some will even be daring and bring them in a *GASP* tie game! But no one, no one at all every brings them in when they're A) losing, even if it's only by a run and the opposition is threatening to break the game open, or B) in any inning earlier than the 8th.

Any way to lobby managers to change? What's the universal thinking justifying their inane actions?
 

New member
Joined
Feb 20, 2002
Messages
2,200
Tokens
Very good topic, Dogs. I have always felt this way, too. The answer to your question is simple, though. Baseball people, more than in any other sport, are fixated on numbers. Almost every fan can recite every "important" number about his favorite player - home runs, strikeouts, stolen bases, ERA, batting avg, slugging pct, RBI's, etc. Why should saves be any different? Unfortunately, it seems like the only number that SHOULD matter - WINS - often takes a back seat to these other numbers. Why, for instance, is it considered sacrilege to bunt for a base hit to break up a no hitter? You are supposed to do whatever is best to help your team to win, aren't you? Apparently not, in this sport. How about leaving a starter in who is getting pummeled, but still has a lead, so that he can get in 5 innings and consequently a chance for a win? Is this in the best interest of the team? Or how about playing a tired or injured player to keep a consecutive game streak going? If someone with a 30 game hit streak was due up in the ninth, his team trailing by a run, man on first with none out, with a 3-0 count - what do you think the chances are that he would take the next pitch, even if it were a foot outside? What would be the chance that he would bunt the man over? In both cases, the odds are probably close to 0. What other sport puts such a premium on individual stats that they knowingly and willingly sacrifice chances at winning to achieve them?
 

Forum statistics

Threads
1,106,770
Messages
13,438,863
Members
99,338
Latest member
chaicoca816
The RX is the sports betting industry's leading information portal for bonuses, picks, and sportsbook reviews. Find the best deals offered by a sportsbook in your state and browse our free picks section.FacebookTwitterInstagramContact Usforum@therx.com