closers are an overrated, media-created position.

[sonak]

I'd always wanted proof of my belief that the "closer" in baseball is a fake role, media-created and latched onto by the closers themselves for obvious reasons-they draw the bigger contracts of course.

Well, analysis of games from the '50 and '60s, pre-closer days when the bullpen roles were different, shows there's no overall increase in percentage of games won after a lead going into the ninth inning.


The whole "bullpen-specialization" trend was stupid. The only real consideration should be who your best matchup is with your relievers. It used to be the best relievers went in when the game outcome was actually IN DOUBT, like a tie game in the seventh inning with bases loaded and one out.


As opposed to putting in your supposed best pitcher in the ninth inning, with no one on base and a three-run lead.



Of course, this trend is not going to change now that each team needs to use four relievers to get through the last two innings of a game, because God forbid a reliever pitch more than 2/3 of an inning, or encroach on the "set-up man" or "closer's" time to come in the game.

 

[DeafPoet]

And yet Mariano Rivera could strike your ass out just by looking at you. It's maybe all hyped up more than it needs to be; but if you're a fan and your guy blows a save, you understand pretty well why there needs to be a guy out there trying to get it in the first place.

 

[sonak]

well right, but the "save" stat is kind of fake, too. It was created by a reporter(holtzman I think?) too create a sort of "appreciation stat" for ace relievers.



Except that what's so great about a "save" in which a closer pitched one inning with a three-run lead? Or got a one-out save?


It brings in the mega-contracts though.


ERA still remains the best measure of any pitcher, starter or reliever.

 

[Aragorn]

There is value to having a great closer, but the save stat itself doesn't mean a whole lot other than big time $$$$$ in the eyes of the players union (like how the DH isn't going anywhere).

For example, take Jose Mesa. The last time he was a closer on a contender was with Seattle (way back when they were actually contenders) and he sucked. But later on, he became the closer for Pittsburgh, and with no pressure to ever compete or win, he racked up the saves.

 

[Chaos Descending]

ERA still remains the best measure of any pitcher, starter or reliever.

That's nonsense. ERA is virtually worthless on its own.

 

[sonak]

ERA still remains the best measure of any pitcher, starter or reliever.

That's nonsense. ERA is virtually worthless on its own.

virtually worthless? What else would you use as the main pitcher stat? W-L? Don't make me laugh. Stats like number of strikeouts don't mean much, so what else are you left with?

 

[Alidar Jarok]

For a closer, the ERA doesn't matter. A guy could give up two runs in the ninth inning and still do his job if the team is up by three. I personally think stats, by themselves, are overrated. You need to evaluate a pitcher by looking at all his positives and negatives.

 

[Canadave]

ERA still remains the best measure of any pitcher, starter or reliever.

That's nonsense. ERA is virtually worthless on its own.

virtually worthless? What else would you use as the main pitcher stat? W-L? Don't make me laugh. Stats like number of strikeouts don't mean much, so what else are you left with?

In my mind, WHIP is almost as revealing (if not more) than ERA.

 

[Tom Servo]

That's nonsense. ERA is virtually worthless on its own.

virtually worthless? What else would you use as the main pitcher stat? W-L? Don't make me laugh. Stats like number of strikeouts don't mean much, so what else are you left with?

In my mind, WHIP is almost as revealing (if not more) than ERA.

Yep, that would be it. WHIP reveals a lot more about a pitchers performance then ERA.

 

[sonak]

WHIP would seems to have the opposite value of ERA.


It'd be like saying a batter who hit .380 but drove in 25 runs over a season was a great hitter.




Runs win games, not baserunners.


now if you wanted to say you should add unearned runs, that'd be one thing. But baserunners tells you next to nothing.



At any rate, this wasn't about comparing pitcher stats, but about the role of closer.

 

[SmoothieX]

I don't particularly like the dumbing down of starting pitching more than I mind closers.

Give me a starter who can consistently go 7 quality innings, hand it to a set up man, and then a closer.

A fresh arm, unphased by late game pressure, who can give me 3-6 outs is a great thing.

A starter who gets congratulated who only giving up 3 runs over 5 1/3 innings is not.

Also, I want a closer who can come in during the 8th and get out of a jamb. The ones that only come in with a lead to start the 9th inning get less respect from me.

 

[sonak]

I don't particularly like the dumbing down of starting pitching more than I mind closers.

Give me a starter who can consistently go 7 quality innings, hand it to a set up man, and then a closer.

A fresh arm, unphased by late game pressure, who can give me 3-6 outs is a great thing.

A starter who gets congratulated who only giving up 3 runs over 5 1/3 innings is not.

Also, I want a closer who can come in during the 8th and get out of a jamb. The ones that only come in with a lead to start the 9th inning get less respect from me.

I agree with your last point, except that if they DID come in to get the team "out of a jam" in the eighth inning, they wouldn't be closers.


They'd actually be valuable relief pitchers who can come in during any potential scenario, as opposed to the guy whose ONLY JOB is to come in after the outcome is decided, there's no one on base, and only one inning to pitch.

 

[Chaos Descending]

WHIP would seems to have the opposite value of ERA.

Not at all.

It'd be like saying a batter who hit .380 but drove in 25 runs over a season was a great hitter.

A guy who hit .380 over a season and only drove in 25 runs over a season WOULD be not only a GREAT hitter but a LEGENDARY hitter, on a really, really, really awful team.

Runs win games, not baserunners.

Unless you are living on home runs, you can't get runs without baserunners.

now if you wanted to say you should add unearned runs, that'd be one thing.

Actually, that really WOULD tell you nothing, because unearned runs have nothing to do with the pitcher. That's why they are unearned.

But baserunners tells you next to nothing.

Baserunners are runs waiting to happen.

At any rate, this wasn't about comparing pitcher stats, but about the role of closer.

1. You made the comment about ERA. Don't be surprised when people respond to it.
2. Threads are not static. They branch and change.

 

[sonak]

WHIP would seems to have the opposite value of ERA.

Not at all.

It'd be like saying a batter who hit .380 but drove in 25 runs over a season was a great hitter.

A guy who hit .380 over a season and only drove in 25 runs over a season WOULD be not only a GREAT hitter but a LEGENDARY hitter, on a really, really, really awful team.


Unless you are living on home runs, you can't get runs without baserunners.

Actually, that really WOULD tell you nothing, because unearned runs have nothing to do with the pitcher. That's why they are unearned.

But baserunners tells you next to nothing.

Baserunners are runs waiting to happen.

At any rate, this wasn't about comparing pitcher stats, but about the role of closer.

1. You made the comment about ERA. Don't be surprised when people respond to it.
2. Threads are not static. They branch and change.

so if a pitcher loads the bases every inning for seven innings, but not a run crosses the plate, he pitched badly because his "WHIP" stat was bad?


Try thinking that through and you'll see how silly that is.

 

[Canadave]

so if a pitcher loads the bases every inning for seven innings, but not a run crosses the plate, he pitched badly because his "WHIP" stat was bad?

Yeah, he probably did, and just got lucky. Neither WHIP nor ERA is a perfect measurement of a pitcher's performance, but I do tend to look at WHIP more (especially in relievers) as it gives you a better indication of how they perform on an innning-to-inning basis. I find ERA to be nearly useless for relievers, since they only pitch an inning at a time... it gives you a decent indication of how often they tend to give up runs, but it's nowhere near as useful as it is when looking at starters.

 

[Chaos Descending]

WHIP would seems to have the opposite value of ERA.

Not at all.

A guy who hit .380 over a season and only drove in 25 runs over a season WOULD be not only a GREAT hitter but a LEGENDARY hitter, on a really, really, really awful team.


Unless you are living on home runs, you can't get runs without baserunners.

Actually, that really WOULD tell you nothing, because unearned runs have nothing to do with the pitcher. That's why they are unearned.

Baserunners are runs waiting to happen.

At any rate, this wasn't about comparing pitcher stats, but about the role of closer.

1. You made the comment about ERA. Don't be surprised when people respond to it.
2. Threads are not static. They branch and change.

so if a pitcher loads the bases every inning for seven innings, but not a run crosses the plate, he pitched badly because his "WHIP" stat was bad?


Try thinking that through and you'll see how silly that is.

If I were the general manager of a team who's pitcher loaded the bases every inning for seven straight innings (even without a run scoring), I'd be looking to trade that pitcher to any sucker that would take him.

 

[sonak]

seriously? Why?


I mean, I can understand that would really drive up the pitch count for the pitcher himself, but team-wise what difference would it make?


If the guy was an escape artist who could repeatedly get himself out of jams, that's a lot better than a guy who goes seven innings, and gives up four runs, all on solo shots, but allows no other baserunners.





(I realize these are rather unlikely examples.)


And I guess I can see the point about relief pitchers and the WHIP specifically, but I still don't see how one can say that the ERA is meaningless by itself.


All stats are incomplete, but I still prefer the ERA for the overall picture.

 

[Alidar Jarok]

A guy who loads the bases every inning without giving up a run is just waiting for the dam to break and he becomes the guy who can never get that third out. The year after Lidge didn't give up a save, he became that guy (during his perfect season, he'd load the bases or give up a run, but the Phillies would always get the victory, which was all that mattered). The next year, he struggled because he would bend and then break.

 

[Canadave]

^ Yeah. I would be very wary of a guy with a 3.20 ERA but a 1.90 WHIP.