The Bullpen Battle: Who's in the Mix?

*(i.e. the privilege to close 3-4 games a month and leverage that for a bigger payday elsewhere)

I pegged a ruggiano and/or anderson for that trade, but obviously that’s moot as the pirates could have had them fo free.

Like Brad Ziegler to the ball club. We don’t know what we are going to get from Cruz and Howell later in the year so I would like one other pitcher who is proven to be a solid bullpen arm.

If designated closers may get many saves and even a high % of saves despite having otherwise poor or mediocre stats, why do we value the role so highly?

I have heard or read a number of suggested answers.

The most credible one in my view is that by designating a closer the manager can set up the rest of his bullpen more effectively. The reason is that without such a role, he might have to have relievers get ready in the bullpen in anticipation of events that never happen, and that would be dangerous to their health if they were constantly getting ready but not always being used.

A second and related argument is that relievers need to know their role to be effective. So knowing who closes also trickles down to knowing who gets the 7th and 8th innings as well.

The only other argument I have heard is that there is some special quality certain pitchers have that allows them to get that final out, a quality other relievers lack.

Are there any other explanations?

As for the third explanation, I dismiss that out of hand. Every year, new closers emerge, often from the pack of relievers who the previous year were not considered closer material. While it may be true that at the margins some pitchers cannot take the pressure of the last inning, I do not think the ability to handle it is particularly rare. The great majority of good relievers are perfectly capable of closing out games.

The second argument seems to me equally weak. It may be that recent patterns have created such a psychological trap, but no matter the inning, the pitcher’s role is exactly the same-get outs and don’t let the other team score. There is some logic to establishing roles such as the ground ball pitcher or the strikeout pitcher, but that has nothing to do with which inning it is.

As for the first argument, I think the concern is overrated. No doubt a manager has to be wary about overworking his relievers in the bullpen, but the very fact that avoiding designating a closer gives him more flexibility means he can utilize the bullpen more fully. If he does not like his best reliever to come in with men on base already, he uses others. If he wants him to start the 7th because he thinks his starter is tiring, no problem. If he has been throwing, use him, even if the score has gotten out of hand. There may be some residual bad effect in that he may not be available the next day in a tighter situation, but why do we think that problem arises more often than allowing 7th inning leads to disappear because of an unwillingness to use your best reliever then?

This mania for acquiring a “known quantity” as a closer seems to me built on fallacious thinking. I think far more important is building a deep bullpen and using each reliever in the situation when he may be most effective. And that has nothing to do with which inning it is; it has to do with the situation-who is at bat, what are the other team’s options and so on. That is not bullpen by committee so much as it flexible usage bullpen or bullpen by situation.

And while I profess to the traditional closer mentality, the reasoning for changing that approach is valid. But for all the talk about re-defining a bullpen in such a manner, I’ve yet to see a manager bring in his best high leverage (and still universally acccepted “designated closer”) in the 7th inning of a game because the heart of the order is up with a one run lead. Nor have I seen him bring him in the game in the 8th inning and replace him in the 9th with a LOOGY who has the best FIP in the pen against lefties because Utley, Howard and Ibanez will be up to start the inning. How often have you seen a ROOGY come in to start the 9th(leading by a run) to pitch to Albert Pujols and then be replaced by the so-called closer?

Now maybe Maddon is the perfect type of guy that is willing to try this especially with no apparent “closer” on the roster now. He also doesn’t have a guy who is earning 10 million dollars to fill that role either and don’t think that doesn’t play a part in a managers reluctance to embrace this new approach. It may have everything to do with it, like it or not. Can anyone name a manager or a bullpen that they have seen this approach used before on a consistent basis? I’ve seen it done often when a "closer’ needs a day off or is on the mend for a week but never as the regular method of managing the bullpen.

Like I said, the arguements for changing the philosophy of the designated closer has it’s merit..in theory. But until someone puts it in use on a regular basis and it shows to be successful, I’ll remain a traditionalist on this matter.

Some people will never learn….the Rays are in trouble if they break camp with that plan.