Value of a good closer

[Sultan_1895-1948]

Just how valuable is having a good closer on your team?

In today's game, with a closer only needing to pitch one inning, and usually with nobody on base, how replaceable are they? Couldn't you pretty much put any decent pitcher in that spot, and get nearly the same results as a "premeir" closer in todays game would get you?

A couple things:

There is something to be said for a closer needing a certain mentality on the mound, and being comfortable in that role. Much like a cornerback in football, closers need to have short memories.

Having said that; the closer role only requires a maximum of two pitches in the arsenal. They don't need more because they won't be going through the lineup more than once. Knowing that he can take his two best pitches and only use those, any replacement pitcher in this scenario would be even that much more effective. Also, knowing that you're only out there for one inning, you can blow your wad stamina wise, without worry. A normal 93-95 mph fastball pitcher can let loose for that short period of time and put an extra 3-5 mph behind it (see John Smoltz).

Assuming that he has the mentality for it, and could adapt to the role, I think you could pretty much put any good pitcher in that spot and he'd succeed. Knowing the above factors of course.

So any thoughts?

[BoSox Rule]

I prefer the term relief ace. Mariano Rivera is a relief ace, Miguel Batista is a pitcher who happens to close and had 30 saves.

[KCGHOST]

I think today's managers are only comfortable when they have one go-to-guy for the 9th inning. The press just crucifies them if they lose a game in the 9th in which the "closer" doesn't pitch. You get zero slack for using the stud earlier even if that is in a highly leveraged situation.

[Sultan_1895-1948]

I prefer the term relief ace. Mariano Rivera is a relief ace, Miguel Batista is a pitcher who happens to close and had 30 saves.

BoSox,

In terms of formulas, is there an estimate of how valuable a "relief ace" actually is over a just normal bullpen guy? And because of the innings and the scenarios, couldn't you make a case for a great setup man being more valuable than a one inning "relief ace?"

[west coast orange and black]

i agree with everything except the number of pitches in the arsenal thing.
if one of those two pitches ain't working... then it's a short night for that pitcher.

very few pitchers can go out there with just two pitches in his arsenal and succeed most of the time. and with closers, "most of the time" doesn't really cut it.

[Sultan_1895-1948]

i agree with everything except the number of pitches in the arsenal thing.
if one of those two pitches ain't working... then it's a short night for that pitcher.

very few pitchers can go out there with just two pitches in his arsenal and succeed most of the time. and with closers, "most of the time" doesn't really cut it.

Suppose it's natural that you found SOMETHING to disagree with

Maybe you misunderstood what I was trying to get across. It's definately a good thing if a closer has more than two pitches, but it's not a must.

Let's say a pitcher has 4 pitches, and here are their ratings in terms of how well they can locate, effectiveness, etc.

Fastball 98
Slider 93
Splitter 83
Changeup 80

For a closer who doesn't need to go through the lineup more than once, it is to his benefit to cut out his two worst pitches. The first advice Smoltz got when he went to closer was to cutout everything except his best two pitches, and only go to the third in certain situations. He went to three. Fastball (which he then could let loose at 98), slider, and his out pitch (splitty).

Hoffman - fastball, change

Eckersley - slider, fastball (two variations)

Rivera - fastball (two variations), very rare curve

Gagne - converted starter perhaps exception to the rule. So many good pitches with different variations it ain't even funny.

Wagner - fastball, curve

Foulke - fastball, change

Benitez - fastball, slider

Think of some others.

I was just saying that focusing on your two best pitches allows you to work on them more, and to master those two. Of course if you have more than two great pitches then all the better though.

[west coast orange and black]

i can go along with the two-dominating-pitches thing, as long as they are both working.
smoltz, hoffman, eckersley, rivera, wagner, foulke and benitez are two-pitch exceptions, rather than the rule.

focusing on the two best pitches works for the pitchers with confidence and discipline, though, i agree.

[unfinished_business]

when determining the value of a closer i would consider two things besides "great stuff" of course

1. mental toughness

2. consistency/reliability

to 1. I think the closer's role is thee most demanding mental position in Baseball (comparable to a goalie in hockey or soccer - every mistake is a goal) a mistake and the closer has blown a save or a loss or both.

thats why i think there are guys who are excellent setup-relievers ( i think of Octavio Dotel or LaTroy Hawkins or Guillermo Mota or Kyle Farnsworth or ...). These guys have the great stuff but i think not the make up to be caluable closers.

to 2. the other thing is reliability. Todd Jones had a great 2005 season - i don't think he will repeat that in 2006. the same may be true for bob Wickman, derrick Turnbow, ryan Dempster and others. the best example of this is Dan Kolb (great 2004 and horrible 2005). Short-relief is the easiest position to have one breakout-season. but you have to do it year in and year out to be a very good or great closer in my view.

[SABR Matt]

To be a closer IMHO you need:

To be equally skilled against both left and right handed batters (no platoon spli at all)

To have at least one pitch that is very consistant and an out pitch (Sasaki's "fang", Rivera's cutter, Gagne's WICKED 4 seamer with life...etc)

To be a pitcher who does not give up the longball or have bouts of bad control

if you have those things..you can close most of the time (though there are a few pitchers who can't adapt to the role)

[Sultan_1895-1948]

to 1. I think the closer's role is thee most demanding mental position in Baseball

When done properly, and taken seriously, I think catcher is the most mentally demanding position.

[Joltin' Joe]

When done properly, and taken seriously, I think catcher is the most mentally demanding position.

Oh without a shadow of a doubt. He's gotta think about each and every pitch. He must read what the batter, the base runner(s), & the opposing manager is thinking. He must keep an eye on the base runner while trying to catch a 99 mph fastball. He must evaluate the stuff his pitcher has that day and adjust accordingly. He must guide the pitcher and calm him down, etc etc etc. We're not even mentioning the physical stuff.

[unfinished_business]

When done properly, and taken seriously, I think catcher is the most mentally demanding position.

i can't agree.

when you mean because of calling pitches and positioning the fielders the catchers are definately asked to do the most mental work. but they are not as singelhandedly responsible as the closer is in the 9th Inning.

imagine: you are the closer. your team has worked hard (especially of course the starter) to get you a one-run lead in the bot9th. but then you walk a batter after an 9-pitch at-bat (i think no fault for you here) but then you hang one pitch (for a two-run homer) and the work of one day has gone out of the window!! (and i am not talking bout a playoff-game!)

once on the field/mound the closer has the most responsibility of any player!
(thats why B.J. Ryan got this silly contract)

[Ubiquitous]

Oh without a shadow of a doubt. He's gotta think about each and every pitch. He must read what the batter, the base runner(s), & the opposing manager is thinking. He must keep an eye on the base runner while trying to catch a 99 mph fastball. He must evaluate the stuff his pitcher has that day and adjust accordingly. He must guide the pitcher and calm him down, etc etc etc. We're not even mentioning the physical stuff.

Doesn't the pitcher have to do all that stuff too? The pitcher isn't a robot, he has to maintain himself nor is he some piece of livestock in which the catcher has to shepard.

[Sultan_1895-1948]

i can't agree.

when you mean because of calling pitches and positioning the fielders the catchers are definately asked to do the most mental work. but they are not as singelhandedly responsible as the closer is in the 9th Inning.

imagine: you are the closer. your team has worked hard (especially of course the starter) to get you a one-run lead in the bot9th. but then you walk a batter after an 9-pitch at-bat (i think no fault for you here) but then you hang one pitch (for a two-run homer) and the work of one day has gone out of the window!! (and i am not talking bout a playoff-game!)

once on the field/mound the closer has the most responsibility of any player!
(thats why B.J. Ryan got this silly contract)

We're talking about "positions" here though. In this case, the closer is a "position" where you might not even get in everyday, and in most cases when you DO get in, you're only in for one inning, usually with a 2 or 3 run lead and nobody on base.

The catcher position is in all 9 innings and his mental workload is at least twice that of a closer imo. It's not even close.

Sure, the closer has the game "in his hands" so to speak, but so does everyone else for the entire game who is on the team. Just so happens that the closer's role is only for that one inning. It's expected that the closer will fail a few times a year, just like we expect even the best field goal kickers to miss some crucial kicks during the year.

If the catcher only came in the 9th inning, then I would agree that the closer role is more mentally demanding, but even then not by a huge margin. As it sits though, game in and game out, catcher is far more mentally (and physically) demanding.

[Joltin' Joe]

Doesn't the pitcher have to do all that stuff too? The pitcher isn't a robot, he has to maintain himself nor is he some piece of livestock in which the catcher has to shepard.

Yes. The closer does that for one inning while the catcher does it for nine. Also the pitcher does not think about the catcher as much as the cather does about the pitcher.

[Sultan_1895-1948]

I started to type out all the ins and outs of being a catcher and realized I wouldn't have time. It would take at least a couple of hours to hit on every detail. Let's just say there's a reason why catchers make the best pitching coaches, or coaches in general for that matter; and there's a reason why catchers generally don't hit well themselves. They're mentally and physically consumed with managing everyone else's performance.

[Brian McKenna]

what is the overall value of closers in total:

i realize an extremely effective closer can make a big difference but what about the closer position itself?

has the percentage of games won changed (that is games after the 7th inning by definition where a save is attainable) - have the % of those games won over all baseball changed dramatically since 1990, 1980, 1970, 1960, 1950?

i say dramatically because the % of team payroll paid to relievers has defintely shifted dramatically - and hence changed team make-up

[redbuck]

Closers inhibit many teams because teams either save their best pitcher for the 9th inning, no matter the situation, or they use the pitcher that isn't their best pitcher, but who is their deemed "closer" in a tough situation.

It seems rediculous to have a position like "closer." Relievers should be used in situations when they are necessary. A starting pitcher shouldn't be removed because the "closer" needs to pitch the 9th to get a "save"

And after all, since when is allowing fewer than three runs in an inning the definition of saving a game.

[Sultan_1895-1948]

what is the overall value of closers in total:

i realize an extremely effective closer can make a big difference but what about the closer position itself?

has the percentage of games won changed (that is games after the 7th inning by definition where a save is attainable) - have the % of those games won over all baseball changed dramatically since 1990, 1980, 1970, 1960, 1950?

i say dramatically because the % of team payroll paid to relievers has defintely shifted dramatically - and hence changed team make-up

Thats kinda where I was goin' originally with this thread. The actual value of the closer role, and how lowered would that "value" be, if you simply used another great reliever in that spot (assuming he has the mental makeup).