No Closer? No Problem.
by Thejeffg on Feb 5, 2009 12:19 PM EST
34 comments
Joe Maddon is known for his quirky managing style. Some of his moves go against conventional wisdom but are backed up by the numbers (like the 34 defense on Papi), others fly in the face of both (remember walking J-Ham with the bases loaded was a genius move only because it worked-I loved it!).
One of the things I loved last season was the Rays' bullpen management down the stretch as Maddon was forced to mix and match at the end of games. I believe being a closer is largely about mentality, and Joe seems to like his more veteran guy in the 9th. Sure, some of the best RPs in the game are closers, but a look at top WPA for relievers last season shows plenty of setup men:
http://www.fangraphs.com/leaders.aspx?pos=all&stats=rel&lg=all&qual=n&type=3&season=2008
Notice the prominence of JP and Balfour. The point here is that the 7th and 8th can often be the more critical innings if say, a pitcher must retire the heart of the order in a close game. Now you can see the closers are appearing to clock in with the highest leverage on the list but keep in mind that with only 3 outs left, retiring a batter increases win probability more dramatically than if there are still 9 outs left. I know this has probably been discussed here before but I thought it might make for a good discussion right now.
For a little more background, check out this BP commentary - I think its pretty clear that Maddon might be the manager closest to marginalizing the Closer and reviving the relief Stopper:
0 recs |
34 comments
|
Email
Print
Comments
Closers are overrated.
Every team needs a “bullpen ace” or two, but they don’t necessarily need to get the final three outs as shown in the link. Use your best pitchers when you need them the most.
Having multiple good relievers is better than one supposed 'great' one
building a pen this way, allows a manager to use his pen as he sees is needed in the game, verses the prototypical way. Having Balfour come in when you need a key strike-out is huge. The more dependable relievers this team has, the better the Maddon philosophy works. And looking at this year’s possible bullpen (Wheeler, Howell, Balfour, Bradford, Shouse, Nelson, Niemann), they are set up well to do exactly that.
by raysfaninminnesota on Feb 5, 2009 2:56 PM EST up reply actions
No it is not
Davis could be one of those types of arms. The difficulty of bullpen pitchers is their volitility. If Davis can be one of these individuals (he doesn’t necessarily have to be THE closer), then it improves the pen. Then the Rays have built a bullpen based around Davis, Howell, Balfour, with the hopeful addition of Niemann and McGee once he’s healthy.
This creates cost-control, a huge favorite of this regime. This frees up additional money to keep the team intact or sign a key free agent.
Right now, the Rays don’t have one of those ‘closer’ arms because it isn’t a good use of limited funds. If the Rays had someone who they used as their closer, I don’t think they would object. But rather than spend the money there, they’d rather try to be creative. However, remember that the Rays did start out with an official closer last season. The only reason why it changed, is due to injury.
If Davis could be Papelbon, it is a luxury the Rays couldn’t normally afford. It’s not necessarily a bad thing. In normal circumstances, I think the Rays have a good idea of a closer-by-committee approach. But if they had someone capable of being a closer, I do not think they would be opposed to using him in that role.
by raysfaninminnesota on Feb 5, 2009 4:22 PM EST up reply actions
Until Davis proves he can't start...
he shouldn’t be penciled into the bullpen. I’m done with this debate though.
and I still disagree
that a ok to good starter is worth as much as an All Star closer.
by raysfaninminnesota on Feb 5, 2009 5:12 PM EST up reply actions
It's easier to find a consistent starter than a consistent reliever
Sometimes I think the focus on WAR and the like makes people forget about the importance of market forces as well. 2 WAR from one spot isn’t necessarily equal to 2 WAR from another spot depending on the supply and demand relative to those spots, because at the end of the day you’ll end up spending more real dollars getting a 2 WAR player to fill the spot with higher demand and lower supply.
Vogt early, Vogt often.
All the more reason to eschew conventional wisdom,
in order to find a cheap, efficient way to get games closed out.
Space.
It's a problem we face.
So we never go anywhere.
We just stay in one place.
Like give 8 million dollars to percival to do nothing but "close"
And by “close” I mean “cost more than you’re worth to a team with the financial resources of the Rays.”
I could be wrong though
by staplemaniac on Feb 6, 2009 11:29 AM EST up reply actions
Beats francisco cordero for 12m/year
Space.
It's a problem we face.
So we never go anywhere.
We just stay in one place.
No
At the time of his signing, the Rays did not know they had a good bullpen. And Percival had done very well in his limited time (40 innings) in St. Louis. So they were paying for an upgrade to the bullpen in a year when they thought they were ready to step forward (albeit not contend, I admit). They did think they would be ready in 2009, however, hence the 2 year deal.
It is true he was signed for the conventional job as closer. I don’t think anyone has yet moved off that model. But essentially he was seen as an improvement in the bullpen for a time that the team might need one to get over the top. In that sense, when he was signed, he did not cost more than he was worth to the Rays.
It's not just about using a guy.
Davis has just barely touched AAA. And the Rays aren’t deep with starters ready to step in if injuries arise. Life has been good in that regard in the last couple of seasons for Tampa, but that’s not the norm, even with a young group of starters.
I’ve got to believe that allowing Davis to develop in AAA as a starter this season, providing potential rotation backup behind Talbot and the 5 slot of Niemann /Price makes much more sense right now. RFinMinn is mostly thinking next season I think, with Davis likely getting a taste of the majors this year in either the rotation (which would be a bad thing if before Sept. – likely meaning injury or ineffectiveness above) or in the pen.
Next season when Hellickson is presumably also getting close (and on the 40 man) and adding to ready starter depth, some more role juggling could be in prder, plus spots will open with Percy leaving, Bradford gone (soon?), and facing potentially pricey arb decisions on Balfour, Nelson, and Cormier. Plus we’ll have another year of performance to judge by.
Perhaps the better question then will be who better suits the pen vs. starting – Talbot or Davis?
by nyyfaninlaaland on Feb 6, 2009 2:18 PM EST up reply actions
"And the Rays aren’t deep with starters ready to step in if injuries arise"
Niemann and Talbot are both ready at this point, and Talbot probably won’t be able to find a spot with the team until rosters expand. Worst case scenario, there’s also Hammel, who managed to pull a 100 ERA+ out of his ass last year.
Vogt early, Vogt often.
I will always remember Hammel for getting out of that Percy-nuke-save!?!
against the Red Sox late in the year. That was an enormous game and he stepped up. Other than that he seems pretty ordinary.
Anyway, as I was lying in the puddle, I think I may have found a way for us to get Bonds and Griffey, and we wouldn't have to give up that much.
~George Costanza~
He's stopped keeping the ball down
And his fastball seems to have lost some movement, which is unfortunate.
Vogt early, Vogt often.
It depends on how you define "good" and "great", but it's actually much closer than people think
I’d take two 3.00 FIP guys and a bunch of rep-level guys over a whole team of 3.75 FIP guys.
Beyond the Boxscore // Calling BJ Upton lazy is lazy.
But isn't the former
kind of what the Rays had in 2007?
by nyyfaninlaaland on Feb 6, 2009 2:23 PM EST up reply actions
Not really.
Balfour was the only reliever with a sub-4.00 FIP. Among 30+ IP guys, the FIPs were:
4.49
4.85
5.02
5.29
5.76
6.13
Remember, replacement-level for relievers is about a 4.60 FIP/ERA these days. Not only did the 2007 relievers have a bad defense behind them and get a bit unlucky, they were also pretty bad.
tRA might be better to look at than FIP, too, if someone wants to go that route.
Beyond the Boxscore // Calling BJ Upton lazy is lazy.
Ok, with tRA, it's ugly, too.
http://statcorner.com/team.php?team=TBA&year=2007&leag=A_L
Rep level on the tRA scale is more like 5.00. The only guy with 30 or more innings to beat 4.90 was Gary Glover at 4.50 (~4.15 ERA)
Beyond the Boxscore // Calling BJ Upton lazy is lazy.
you misspelled man
dumas
Anyway, as I was lying in the puddle, I think I may have found a way for us to get Bonds and Griffey, and we wouldn't have to give up that much.
~George Costanza~
by Sandy Kazmir on Feb 9, 2009 12:36 PM EST up reply actions
Who were you thinking were the lights-out guys?
Beyond the Boxscore // Calling BJ Upton lazy is lazy.
Dohmann and Salas were the only guys to beat a 4.89 ERA.
And they had 3.31 and 3.72 ERAs in about 35 IP each. And Dohman had an LI of 1.1 with Salas at .5
Beyond the Boxscore // Calling BJ Upton lazy is lazy.
Were you going to sign him to be your closer?
Just going to warn you, this particular plan is not a good one.
Scored three times and detonated an indisputable in four visits to the batting box.
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
FanShots
Quick hits of video, photos, quotes, chats, links and lists that you find around the web.
Recent FanShots
In Association With
Big League Stew - MLB - Yahoo! Sports
- The Grandstand: Crunch time in September arrives again
- Hello, Bourjos: Angels rookie plays it fast on both sides of ball
- An off-the-wall take on why the Twins will make the World Series
- John Lindsey couldn't have come any closer to his first at-bat
- The Juice: Swisher ends Orioles sweep dreams with timely homer
Certain photos copyright © 2010 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
