Regarding J.P. Howell's "Issues" As Closer

by R.J. Anderson on Nov 2, 2009 2:28 PM EST Comment 30 comments

I've heard and read a few comments saying the Rays really need to invest in a closer - oxymoron - because J.P. Howell just isn't cut out of the job. The Rays should sign someone like [Veteran Pitcher] so Howell can go back to roving as a fireman and leave the saves to a more qualified arm. Naturally, I was befuddled when I viewed his ERA in save situations. ERA lacks in quality and I would never encourage using it as a meaningful measure, but the casual fan eats it up like chocolate-coated ham. Have a look for yourselves:

Situation	IP	SO%	uBB%	HR%	ERA	FIP
Sv	26	32.8	14.7	2.6	2.77	3.97
Non-Sv	40.7	25.3	8	2.5	2.88	3.5

A better ERA and only a slightly worse FIP. Here's a list of things we know after looking at the above data:

1. J.P. Howell is a good relief pitcher.

2. 40 innings is not a large sample size and leaves a lot of room for variance.

3. 26 innings is even smaller.

4. Howell's issues with walks were almost evened out by his increase in strikeouts.

5. The Rays shut him down due to fatigue.

Nothing indicates Howell is incapable of closing games. Jonathan Papelbon had a 3.1 FIP in save situations this year. Francisco Rodriguez went to the N.L. and still had a FIP around 4.37 in save situations. Jose Valverde's was north of 3.7 too. The list goes on and on.

I don't particularly care if Howell is the closer or not next year - heck, him not being the closer probably saves on arbitration costs - but to say he "doesn't have ‘it'" or buckled in his chance is ridiculous. He pitched fine, and if you're willing to make broad statements like that based on less than 30 innings of work then bigger issues are in play.

Howell may or may not close next year, but it won't be because he somehow failed in his duties this season.

Note: I hand-calculated the FIP and used a constant of 3.2. So the exact totals are about a third of a run off FanGraph's FIP.

0 recs | Comment 30 comments | Share

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

I used 3.1 and it match FG's FIP better

although that was earlier this season

The Rays Party

by therayspartyleader on Nov 2, 2009 3:47 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

OT:DIdn't know where to put this one

Damon’s AB and SBs are the stuff WS legends are made of

by sternfan1 on Nov 2, 2009 4:07 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

Not that it will necessarily change anything, including the point,

but do the IP used above for save situations include the innings Howell pitched that technically occurred in save situations under the rules but not in the closer’s role (e.g., “hold” situations in the 7th or 8th)?

by Gopherballs on Nov 2, 2009 4:49 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

Nope, pretty sure it's striclty save situation (meaning final inning only).

by R.J. Anderson on Nov 2, 2009 4:58 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

We already have a closer...his name is David Price

/rays.com mailbag

www.draysbay.com

by Tommy Rancel on Nov 2, 2009 6:32 PM EST via mobile up reply actions 0 recs

Looking at b-ref splits and game log

it looks like you need to include the innings from the holds and 7th and 8th inning blown saves from earlier in the year to get to the 26 IP for the save situation split.

by Gopherballs on Nov 2, 2009 7:33 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

That's no good.

Let me check into those totals a little more after I finish my FG piece.

by R.J. Anderson on Nov 2, 2009 7:51 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I know I am becoming repetitive

and I also know that it is virtually impossible that my view of things will be implemented in the near future.

Nonetheless, I will reiterate. I don’t want Howell to be the closer, at least not in the sense it is currently meant. In fact, I do not want anyone on the Rays to be the closer, nor do I want the Rays to spend a dime acquiring someone to be the closer. And I certainly do not want the Rays to trade anyone of value to acquire a designated closer. Since I am resigned to the reality that the Rays want to have a designated closer, I would love to get someone like Heath Bell or Billy Wagner, but only because it would deepen the bullpen and allow Maddon to use Howell and others more flexibly. I still think it would be an inefficient use of resources to pay for them in the closer role though.

I consider utilizing the best pitcher in the bullpen as a 9th inning specialist only when the team is ahead, and rarely in tie games or virtually never any other time or in any other situation, to be a colossal waste of resources. I think it is an inefficient use of the talent on hand and an expensive way to construct a roster.

Mariano Rivera is often considered the greatest closer in history, and post-season success is often adduced in support of that claim. I am convinced that his great talent has been misused and that the Yankees probably lost more games because they misused him than they won by having him close as he has. I know that sounds perversely wrong, but I still maintain it. By saving him for 1 inning, 3 run lead saves, the Yankees failed to have him available for more crucial situations earlier in games.

I like the idea of Howell as a fireman, not because I think he does not have the ability to close, but because I think he is too good for that. As the best reliever on the staff, I want him available when most needed. For the rest, I would love the Rays to acquire more solid bullpen arms, but I want them to be flexible enough and good enough to be useful both to finish games and to come in when the situation calls for their specific skills.

by bobr on Nov 2, 2009 6:47 PM EST reply actions 5 recs

Excellent comment.

by R.J. Anderson on Nov 2, 2009 6:57 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

As Always

Funny thing about Rivera is he would be equally as good a pitcher, with far more blown saves and fewer saves.

Follow Me on Twitter @FreeZorilla

by FreeZorilla on Nov 2, 2009 9:24 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

this concept is good...but only if the Rays still spend moolah

The idea of no set closer only works if you have multiple dependable relievers who can handle the high-pressure sitatuations. You still need multiple set up/high leverage relievers. This concept only works if instead of spending big bucks on one closer, you instead choose to get 2-3 high leverage guys in addition to the 1 or 2 you should already have.

Option A: 10 mil for 1 pitcher (a closer)
Option B: 10 mil for 2-3 pitchers

For a team to truly take advantage of this method, you still have to spend the same amount of money…but you are getting double or triple the value. In this market you could still get a Rafael Soriano/Rafael Betancourt/Kiko Calero. I would rather have that than say Jose Valverde.

Only if you spend the same amount of money do you truly get maximum value under this concept. Same amount of money, more bang for your buck. If the Rays do not do that, then it’s just being thrifty (and that may still be a necessity) but not a closer-by-committee.

Best way for Rays to approach bullpen free agent market is to maybe just wait and let things play out. The odds are in their favor that someone gets left out and can be had on a good one year deal.

by raysfaninminnesota on Nov 2, 2009 10:45 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

History has been unkind to rotating closers though

At least in the regular season, post season is definitely closer to a rotating bullpen. But I wouldn’t mind having a designated closer, as long as they did it correctly. Find a guy, use him, then get a new guy a few year later.

Anyone can earn saves, just find a guy to do it a 4-5yrs who’s good in relief then move him, who knows, may end up better off that way with all the dumb teams out there and the LOOKS AT THE SAVES logic.

by Transplanted on Nov 2, 2009 7:20 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

The problem with this logic is that you want to use a young guy so they are cheap

Awesome, young guys tend to get a crack at starting first. Would you rather have Davy Price or Wade D starting or “closing”. I’m all for playing matchups, but we would need at least 2 other guys as good as Pizzle. Balfour is a notch down and most of the other guys in out pen this year are only good situationally i.e. Wheeler to start an inning, Choate/Shouse vs. lefties, Bradford vs. righties, Cormier in mop up. Even the guys that we have looked at are only cheap because of the questions surrounding them. Glass brought up Chan Ho Park’s name, I would give him a shot. Bob brought up Billy Wagner. I don’t think we’ve really talked about him. Most people know the story. I would think he would want, and be able to get, more dollars guaranteed than what we gave Izzy, but I would probably want to give him 2M with incentives up to 7M. Wagner looked really impressive in the brief work that he got with Boston.

I’m not sure how a 3-headed-monster of Wagner/Howell/Balfour would play out, but I wouldn’t want to face them in the 6th, 7th, 8th, or 9th. Throw in a GB guy like Danys Baez and the possible addition of Hellickson in July or August and it starts to look like an all-purpose BP instead of one where each guy has a defined role and he can only excel when put into that role.

As for Rosterbation, I would have to think pretty hard about a Craw trade to the White Sox that would net us Matt Thornton, A.J. Pierzynski, and an arm like John Ely. Kenny is not afraid to make a bold move and with Tyler Flowers leveling up quickly, Pierzynski could be superfluous for them. I can’t stand the guy, but he’s never been on my team. He’s like Dino Ciccarelli, in that the guy gets under the other teams skin. You hate playing him, but don’t mind if he’s on your team. He’s an upgrade over Zaun (who we could send over as a mentor for Flower, much as he was with the O’s this year) and comes relatively cheap at $6.25M in this, the last year of his contract. Traditionally, he has hit righties better, so we wouldn’t have to cut bait on Navi quite yet. Navi could start against lefties and pick up a few other games to keep A. J. from dying down the stretch. Navi is still cheap, I just think he needs to be humbled and get in elite shape. It’s pretty clear that his current physique will never allow him to play 120+ games. In Thornton, we get one of the best relievers in the AL for club options of $2.25M and $3M over the next two years.

I love Craw, he’s been here as long as I have, but I think we need to make hay on him while the sun is shining. They get the best LFer in MLB and have the resources to lock him up forever. Additionally, if they do get him to a favorable long-term contract, it will suit him better playing in an offensive-inflated environment. As he shifts from speed-demon to more of a power threat it can only help to play in the Cell. I know this is all over the place, but I think this is a win-win deal for both teams. Here’s a couple of comparison’s:

You can either die the hero or live long enough to become the villain

by Andy Hellicksonstine on Nov 2, 2009 8:54 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Here's Jim Callis's take on John Ely

LINK

You can either die the hero or live long enough to become the villain

by Andy Hellicksonstine on Nov 2, 2009 9:07 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Those Young guys would of course not be used

I mean a guy who’s not going to make the starting rotation or has the stuff like JP, but can’t go through a line up. Like for example, if like Talbot was gonna run out of options, give him a shot at closing or something.

If we can get Davis’s demeanor on a relief pitcher, instant closer(dreams)

by Transplanted on Nov 3, 2009 2:02 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I don't think Talbot is good enough for that role, otherwise he'd already be here.

In my example I was referring more to the trade-off of, say, Jon Papelsmear forgoing ever attempting to start because they had all that depth when he came up. Now he is strictly a reliever and may find it hard to ever become a starter. Can you imagine how much more value he would have brought to the team if they could use him as a starter? I hope we don’t do that with any of our young guns. The few guys I would like to see that would be Talbot, McGee, and Hellickson (for the stretch run, the way Price was used in 08).

You can either die the hero or live long enough to become the villain

by Andy Hellicksonstine on Nov 3, 2009 9:05 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

We need one due to way Joe manages............

The more this team can nail down the role players the less managing Joe does and the better this team will play. His late inning matchups are so frikin predictable that the opposing team probably already have them mapped out before the game starts.

by Darrel K on Nov 2, 2009 7:48 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

Having a set closer isn't predictable by the other team?

by R.J. Anderson on Nov 2, 2009 7:50 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Yeah, I'm not sure what predictability has to do with anything

So you know that Wheeler will come in the 8th, how does that change anything? You know that Shouse will face a lefty, how does that change anything?

You can either die the hero or live long enough to become the villain

by Andy Hellicksonstine on Nov 2, 2009 8:57 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I don't know.

It’s not like you want Maddon saying “Hm, Jason Bay is up. Time to put in Shouse.”

by R.J. Anderson on Nov 3, 2009 10:21 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

One problem with discussing Maddon's managerial style,

aside from the facts that it focuses on the least significant elements of his job and does not account for the reasoning that may influence his decisions, is that it also assumes his strategic approach is static.

I think if there is one trait we can apply to Maddon (and the organization) it is that it is dynamic, not static. If he has made errors in bullpen usage or pinch hitting (questionable assertions anyway, in my mind), it does not mean he will not learn from those mistakes. I don’t think Maddon is bound by experimental approaches any more than he is by conventional ones, nor is he committed to proving himself right. My guess is that part of the off-season work by Maddon and the staff will be to evaluate decisions they made in 2009 and make adjustments.

by bobr on Nov 3, 2009 7:09 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Joakim Soria would make everyone happy

Set closer makes rest of bullpen better and allows Howell to be your any situation any time reliever with no defined ‘inning.’ And his team-friendly contract keeps him cheap and under control for next couple seasons. A package headlined by say Reid Brignac and Fernando Perez and maybe Mitch Talbot should suffice.

by raysfaninminnesota on Nov 2, 2009 10:50 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

why...

for a guy that pitches 50-70 innings a year…

by Navi's_Navy on Nov 2, 2009 11:59 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I don't like trading for someone that'll be gone in like 2 years that's gotten it done

it’d cost too much to get for the return

by Transplanted on Nov 3, 2009 1:57 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

10:$3M, 11:$4M, 12:$6M club option, 13:$8M club option, 14:$8.75M club option ($0.75M buyout for each option)

He’s under cheap control for next three season and last two club options are still very reasonable. Sometimes you have to give something up to get something good. Soria makes everyone else better by putting them in less-leveraged situations. It also keeps Howell’s arb cost down. It really is in the best interest of the Rays if they can get a ‘cheap’ closer like Soria.

by raysfaninminnesota on Nov 3, 2009 8:20 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

For what?

Don’t bring up anything that Yodascout seems to think is a good idea.

You can either die the hero or live long enough to become the villain

by Andy Hellicksonstine on Nov 3, 2009 9:07 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Just make Mitch Talbot the closer.

I’d be pretty irate if we used Brignac to get a closer in return. Especially considering he’s not the only thing we’re giving up that could help the team next year.

by R.J. Anderson on Nov 3, 2009 10:25 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Mitch Talbot?

everyone talks about how you can just about insert anyone and expect it to work. Percy was a closer that failed because he was too old and injury prone. Everyone else picked up the slack only because Balfour had a career year, and Price was the ace in the hole in the playoffs. This past year there was no career year and not enough depth for it to work. You just can’t put anyone in the 9th. This past year our bullpen showed that as well. A closer is also risky. But you can’t pick both. Pick one or the other.

Soria only costs 13 mil over the next 3 seasons. That is amazing value. We paid percy more on a 2 yr deal than Soria will make over the next two. Brignac seems like fair compensation. But that is based on the fact that the Rays don’t view him as their starter. And if the Rays decide they want a 9th inning guy.

If they prefer to go the closer-by-committee approach then they need to develop that committee. Perhaps dealing Brignac and another piece or two to Oakland for catcher Kurt Suzuki and Michael Wuertz. Then the Rays could add a couple other pieces like Kiko Calero and Rafael Betancourt. That would give them Howell, Balfour, Wheeler, Wuertz, Calero/Betancourt, perhaps Choate and Cormier.

Either way it’s best for the Rays to decide whether they want a bona fide closer (and then try to find one that is good and on the cheap—Heath Bell would be the other one to come to mind) or go out and get 2 ‘dependable’ late inning relievers that have a solid track record.

by raysfaninminnesota on Nov 3, 2009 11:37 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs