The closer situation
by Ghosty on Mar 15, 2009 12:43 PM EDT
47 comments
Just wanted an excuse to poll everyone on who you think the Cardinals' new closer should be? Ever since I saw Josh Kinney close out game 3 of the 2006 NLCS vs. the Mets I have always been an advocate of him being the closer of the future, or at least our 8th inning man.
Ryan Franklin's been doing great this spring, and even though Tony will probably give it to him because of his age, I'm starting to think maybe he should be our long relief guy like Brad Thompson sometimes is. He did pretty well the other day in this role. Plus he blew too many saves last year.
Jason Motte's been perfect. I'm worried he doesn't have enough tools for the job, however.
And as for Chris Perez, he isn't exactly setting the world on fire. Maybe Perez should be setting up Motte, and not vice versa.
I even read one time Tony was talking about giving it to Trever Miller, but this isn't really a great idea. He's old, he's not the way of the future, and he's better as a left-handed specialist. I'd sooner go with Dennys Reyes, but I'd also rather use him as a specialist, or at least long relief.
My overall pick is Kinney, but he's the dark horse at this point for the job. What do you all think?
0 recs |
47 comments
Email
Print
Comments
I vote Motte
Perez starts the season at AAA to work on throwing his fastball, slider, and curve all for strikes. His curveball’s better than most appreciate and will be a great weapon against lefties pretty soon.
Motte drops into setup once Perez is ready, someone gets demoted or traded.
I think Motte’s about as ready as he’ll ever be. Not to say he won’t improve, but he’s ready to improve at this level, Perez still has a little work to do in the minors. That’s my opinion.
by liam on Mar 15, 2009 1:11 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
I agree
with Motte starting as the closer. I know I am being too optimistic, but I don’t see him giving it up once he takes it.
Really though, if Perez can get just a little bit better control, I don’t care which one of the tow are the closer. I think both of them are going to have fantastic seasons. I kinda like the thought of the two-headed closer. Keep em fresh, and keep em competing with each other.
* sarcasm might be involved in this comment
and....BEN SHEETS!!! **
**not that BEN SHEETS might be involved in this comment, just BEN SHEETS!!!
(BEN SHEETS might be involved in this comment)
by mattyfrommo on Mar 15, 2009 2:17 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
great post
I didn’t think of this, but it makes the most sense. Perez has more pitches than Motte to master, and doesn’t pitch quite as fast… but Perez has been groomed to be a closer for quite some time. once people start to catch up a little bit with Motte’s fastball, we bring up Perez and use Motte as the high leverage situation guy (after he has experience closing).
by Cards Fan in Chitown on Mar 15, 2009 4:59 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Whhhhhaaaaatttt aaaabbboooouuutttt......
Kinney?!?!?!?!?!
Here’s hoping, for real.
by Ghosty on Mar 15, 2009 3:34 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
I voted Kinney
He doesn’t have the velocity, but his stuff just has wicked movement.
by TheBirds on Mar 15, 2009 3:49 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I saw kinney pitch yesterday
he had a wicked slider working for him yesterday. Franklin looked good too. I don’t mind either of them closing out games. Motte would be ok too.
by ultimatecardinalfan on Mar 15, 2009 4:10 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
I missed the last option on there
I voted for chris perez, but if I had read the closer by committee option, I would have voted for that.
by Cards Fan in Chitown on Mar 15, 2009 5:01 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
i vote Apple Sauce till YP gets his act together
BEN MOTHERHUSHYOURMOUTH SHEETS
I'm going to go try to find a puppy and kick it. - Brad Thompson AND THAT'S A WINNER!
by gdm426 on Mar 15, 2009 11:37 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
That is exactly what I did!
vivaelbeñsheets
by vivaelpujols on Mar 15, 2009 11:44 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
closer by committee
I think people put way too much emphasis on the closer/save. Who cares if you get 60 saves out of a flashy closer or 60 saves by 3 or 4 different pitchers. I say let the situation dictate it. If 2 of the first 3 hitter’s in the ninth are left handed, throw Trevor Miller in there to get the save. If the first hitter or two are weak slap hitters, throw Motte in there to blow the ball by them. If the guys coming up in the ninth are good patient hitters, put Kinney in to throw something nasty at them. I just don’t see why people are so enamored with having one guy on the team get 40 saves in a season. Sure it looks nice to have one of your team’s guys leading the league in saves. But to me, a save is a save. Whoever gets it doesn’t matter to me as long as the team wins.
by Cardsray on Mar 16, 2009 9:38 AM EDT reply actions 1 recs
Closer by Committee
I think Motte would be the worst man for the job because I’d rather hand him the ball in the middle innings when I need out of a jam. He throws gas, doesn’t walk anyone, and has proven to be awfully tough to hit at AAA and in his brief stint in the majors. I’d rather hand him the ball with 1 out and the bases loaded in the 7th than having him start off the ninth, because none of the other guys have the stuff to come in and get two strikeouts or a weak flyball/grounder to end the inning. I think that a combination of Kinney, Perez, Franklin, and McClellan could easily handle the closer job.
I think your best strikeout pitcher really needs to be used in the highest leverage situations when you really need a strikeout. I think this is why Rodney and Zumaya were used they way they were in Detroit, while relying on Todd Jones, who clearly had inferior stuff, to close out games in the ninth.
"I just wish that the late Harry Caray were still around so I could hear him mispronounce 'Kosuke Fukudome' every fukun' night" -- Dennis Miller
by fourstick on Mar 16, 2009 12:02 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Yeah, and Detroit's bullpen was awful in 07 and 08 and overrated in 2006
The best reliever in your bullpen always has to be deployed as the closer. Blowing holds/saves in the 9th inning is more costly than blowing them in earlier innings because there is little/no chance to mount a comeback. If you bring in your two best relievers in innings 6/7/8 and they are out of the ballgame by the 9th innning you are screwed if the game goes into extra innings or a guy like Trever Miller struggles if he cant nail down the save. If a guy like Motte came in to pitch to one batter to get out of a jam in the 7th inning and was then lifted for a PH in the 8th, than he is lost for the rest of the game, regardless for how long the game goes into extra innings(with tons of high-leverage situats) or what kind of jam you might face in the 9th.
We saw what happened last year when Isringhausen, who was pitching with much diminished stuff and clearly nothing more than a long man, went out there night after night to try and close with a dead arm. Guys like KMAc and Springer had already been expended in earlier innings and there was no one to go and bail the mediocre CLOSER out of his mess.
What more does Motte have to do to earn the job? Maybe they do want him to spend some time at AAA but he’s already proven he can be dominant at the Bigs and he’s been kicking @$$ at ST. I don’t see why there is even any more than moot debate over wether or not Motte should close. Its a no-brainer.
by Czechguardsman on Mar 16, 2009 3:15 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
there's no such thing as "bailing a guy out".
you can pitch a perfect inning and you still can’t make negative runs. the only way a reliever can “bail out” a previous pitcher who falls behind is by taking an at-bat and driving in a run.
you’re embracing a logical fallacy. if pitcher A is capable of pitching a perfect seventh inning, is there a reason he can’t pitch a perfect ninth inning? if pitcher B is going to choke in the ninth inning and give up three runs, is there a reason why he would not choke in the sixth inning? runs scored (or not scored) in the sixth count just as much as runs scored (or not scored) in the ninth.
to illustrate this point, you draw on the example of izzy in 08. isringhausen tried to come back mid-summer and pitch again. tony at some point stopped putting him in the closer role. he just started blowing games in the sixth and the seventh. isringhausen was a problem because he couldn’t get people out, not because of the role he was in or the inning he was pitching.
let’s say the heart of houston’s or philadelphia’s order is coming up in eighth of a close game. your logic would say, put your second best reliever – your setup man – in the game. that would leave your best pitcher pitching to the dregs at the bottom of the order. I would much rather have my best pitcher pitch to lance berkman in the eighth than to towles in the ninth.
a run is a run is a run.
by tom s. on Mar 16, 2009 4:11 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
All previous attempts to construct a bullpen in the way you described above have failed.
The reason for that is because having the fireman on call to pitch to the heart of the order the last time “hopefully” it will come up is because such a construction is focusing on a small detail as opposed to the big picture of the entire game. Using Motte for the most “high-leverage situation” is fine if you want to win the 8th inning, but not if you want to win the whole game.
How many times have we seen singles hitters at the bottom of the order create a 9th inning rally against a mediocre closer? Since a guy like Miller or Thompson is going to pitch to contact and give up a lot of hits, that would give guys like Towels and Quintero alot of opportunities to get on base in the bottom of the 9th and allow Houston to recycle its lineup to the top of the order. .Motte is far more likely to post a perfect inning than Miller/Thompson and prevent the 9th inning rally. Motte CAN “bail-out” another pitcher by preventing his inherited runners to score.
Giving up a runs in the 6th inning is less costly than giving up runs in the 9th inning because if you are on the road you have no chance to mount a comeback if your closer blows the save. If a setup guy blows the hold in the 6th you have at least 4 innings with which to re-tie the game. I’d rather take my chances on Miller pitching a perfect 6th inning than a perfect 9th inning. I want to keep my best relievers(Perez/Motte) for the 8th, 9th, and extras. I’d rather have a blown hold/save in the 6th inning as opposed to the 9th inning.
The main thing relievers seem to want is defined bullpen roles. Everybody is happy when they have a good idea of when they will be called upon to pitch.
And when is the last time a team using the closer by committee model has had any success in the regular season or postseason? Not recently.
by Czechguardsman on Mar 16, 2009 4:51 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
are you saying that a closer by committee has never worked?
* sarcasm might be involved in this comment
and....BEN SHEETS!!! **
**not that BEN SHEETS might be involved in this comment, just BEN SHEETS!!!
(BEN SHEETS might be involved in this comment)
by mattyfrommo on Mar 16, 2009 5:13 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
The Rays did
last year. The Red Sox did in 2005, and the Mariners did in 2003 . They were all pretty successful with it.
* sarcasm might be involved in this comment
and....BEN SHEETS!!! **
**not that BEN SHEETS might be involved in this comment, just BEN SHEETS!!!
(BEN SHEETS might be involved in this comment)
by mattyfrommo on Mar 16, 2009 6:12 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
It's actually worked five times in this decade
mattyfrommo points out three of them. It addition, it worked for the WS Champ Cardinals in 2006 after Izzy went down, it worked for the WS runner up Rockies in 2007 with Fuentes and Corpas. The Dodgers used it pretty well last year, the White Sox in ’05, the Braves in ’05, and the Braves in ’00.
Just because a lot of teams don’t do it doesn’t mean that it can’t be done with above average results. The closer position has really become a self fulfilling prophecy.
"I just wish that the late Harry Caray were still around so I could hear him mispronounce 'Kosuke Fukudome' every fukun' night" -- Dennis Miller
by fourstick on Mar 16, 2009 7:42 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
There is a difference between knowingly entering a season with a plan to use a closer-by-committee model
as opposed to when the current closer is hurt or ineffective and someone usurps the role during a midseason competition. Wainwright, Jenks, and Corpas were all installed as the closer by the time their teams had began their postseason runs.
I guess that the 2005 Red Sox, when Schilling and Timlin were picking up saves, and the 03 Ms who did the C-B-C for a while, are anomalies. But the Red Sox were forced to turn to Schilling/Timlin when Foulke imploded, and the Sox were swept by the WhiteSox in the NLDS. In 2005, when Dan Kolb struggled after he was signed to close, the Braves handed the ball to Reitsma and then to Farnsworth, but Farnsworth was the named closer for the Braves in the 2005 LDS
In 2005 Bobby Jenks took the closer role and ran with it; the Chi Sox used only Jenks to close games in their WS run. Wainwright was the only Cardinal pitcher used to close games in the 2006 postseason.
Most of the examples cited above refer to teams who had a closer change in the middle of the season. Sure, for a time there was a mid-season competition to determine the next closer in some cases. But for the most part, there was a named closer down the stretch and in the postseason even if he wasn’t the same guy picking up saves for the entire season. A true, recent, working case of C-B-C just isn’t there save for the Seattle example.)
by Czechguardsman on Mar 17, 2009 12:57 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Enter shades of grey...
All of those teams used more than one closer, and all of those teams used more than one guy to finish games in which they were ahead during some part of the season. All of those teams made the post-season, so they were pretty successful with it.
The ‘03 M’s proved your point wrong that nobody’s done it in the last decade, and the other teams proved that you can make the post-season without Mariano Rivera or K-Rod on your team; that the job can in fact be done by multiple people throughout the season, which is the situation that St. Louis is in this spring.
"I just wish that the late Harry Caray were still around so I could hear him mispronounce 'Kosuke Fukudome' every fukun' night" -- Dennis Miller
by fourstick on Mar 17, 2009 10:37 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
but how much of the history of bullpens is a self-fulfilling prophecy?
if the conventional wisdom is that you need your best pitcher to be a closer, then the bullpens with closers-by-committee are generally going to be bullpens that lack a strong reliever. if a bullpen is not strong, it’s not going to save a lot of games.
that’s not dissimilar from saying that you need five strong, consistent starters and citing to the success of teams with five strong, consistent starters and the lack of success of rotations with 15 guys making starts in a season. is it because you need to pitch 30 games a year to “get a rhythm” or is it because rotations with five regular starters tend to have five healthy, effective starters, and healthy, effective starters (no matter their numbers) are the secret to a good rotation?
by tom s. on Mar 16, 2009 6:13 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
There are some strong misrepresentations of facts here
Detroit’s bullpen was overrated in 2006? The average ERA+ of their top 6 relievers that year was 146.3. The average for the Cardinals top 6 that year, including Wainwright, was 119. Their bullpen was the best in the big leagues in terms of ERA+, so I find it hard to call them overrated. Since then, Rodney and Zumaya haven’t thrown as many innings in the last two years as they did in 2006, so that probably explains why they haven’t been as good — their two best relievers have been hurt.
What more does Motte have to do to earn the job?
What job is he earning? The “saves piler-upper for some fantasy baseball geek who took him in the last round and hoped for the best” moniker? Seriously, I think he’s earned a spot in the bullpen, and he might be the best option, but that doesn’t mean I’d make him the closer. He might be better suited to pitch in tight spots when Tony needs a guy to come in and get a couple of strikeouts.
you are screwed if the game goes into extra innings
You show me a manager that’s playing for extra innings when he’s up a run in the 8th and I’ll show you a manager that’s going to have his pink slip handed to him in less than a week. You don’t EVER play for extra innings — if you have a lead you protect it. What’s more, have you seen Motte ever throw more than one inning? He might be worn out after one inning — it’s not like he can keep hitting 100 on the gun all night. This is a really ridiculous argument to make, imo.
Blowing holds/saves in the 9th inning is more costly than blowing them in earlier innings because there is little/no chance to mount a comeback.
While I don’t disagree, we’re not talking about a very large difference here. I’d rather throw my best guy when I have the best chance to keep the lead, rather than leaving him back when he may not pitch at all. No offense, but I’d rather keep a lead heading into the ninth, then blow it in the 7th and have to make a comeback against the other teams top two bullpen arms in the 7th and 8th.
As I said, I think we have some other good relievers that are better suited to starting an inning. I think McClellan, Franklin, and Perez are all better off when they start a fresh frame, because they have issues with walks. Motte doesn’t have this problem, so he’s better off than the others when coming in during a tight situation with inherited runners. He can get a strikeout with very little risk of a walk, which is a huge plus in those situations. I’m not saying he’s not the best guy, but that his particular skill set as a reliever works best in those situations.
"I just wish that the late Harry Caray were still around so I could hear him mispronounce 'Kosuke Fukudome' every fukun' night" -- Dennis Miller
by fourstick on Mar 16, 2009 7:30 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
...
1) I think that when Czech says that the Tigers bullpen was “overrated” it was because they weren’t as good as there numbers were. That was actually true. While, the Tigers had one of the top 5 bullpens in the league by ERA (3.55), their cumulative FIP in the pen was in the middle of the pack at over .70 points higher than there ERA. Furthermore, neither one of there top 6 relievers had an FIP under 3.5.
2)
He might be better suited to pitch in tight spots when Tony needs a guy to come in and get a couple of strikeouts.
I used to agree with that sentiment, but Sky Kalkman proved me wrong. Closers are alway used in higher leverage situation then then setup man, or “strikout specialists”. If Motte is our best pitcher than he should be the closer.
3) I’d would just like to say that I am loving the state of the pen now. Kinney, Reyes, Miller, Perez, Motte and Kyle McClellan are projected to have ERA’s under 4. Even Franklin and Thompson are projected to be decent. With the good defense that we have, I see no reason why we couldn’t be a top 5 bullpen in the league. We certainly won’t lead the league in losses and blown saves again.
vivaelbeñsheets
by vivaelpujols on Mar 17, 2009 4:20 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Now that the dead weight of Isringhausen and Flo/Villone are out of the way and Franklyn is(hopefully) knocked down to long relief...
The path is clear for Motte to close. Bullpens fluctuate wildly from year to year and have a relativey high turnover rate every season. I think the Cards will be benifiting from some addition by subtraction and by a good year of player development.
Ideally, for any bullpen, you can have a lights out closer like Nathan AND have 2 guys like Motte and Zumaya to come in for those late inning high-leverage situation. When the rays had Percival/Wheeler/Balfour coming in in 2008 they were set up well for the most of the year until Percival(rather predictably) broke down. Then, they were forced to use Wheeler, an ideal 8th inning guy, to close, and Wheeler was clearly not as good as Paplebon or Lidge in last year’s postseason and it cost the Rays. But the Rays pen last year was NOT a closer-by-committee model. It was a bullpen in transition that was forced to find a new closer on the run in September. Even though Percival is still slated to start the year as the closer, I think it will be someone else(Balfour, Niemann) before too long.
by Czechguardsman on Mar 17, 2009 10:37 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Again...check your facts
Wheeler was clearly not as good as Paplebon or Lidge in last year’s postseason and it cost the Rays.
Really? Hmmmmmmmmm — Me thinks you just proved my point for me.
Papelbon and Lidge were both lights out, but the rest of the pen leading up to Papelbon is what cost the Red Sox the ALCS. There were a number of games decided before Papelbon could even start getting warmed up.
Speaking of Lidge, he faced only one high leverage situation in the World Series — same as Wheeler, actually, so saying that Lidge is the reason the Phillies won and Wheeler is the reason the Rays lost is ridiculous, especially since Wheeler wasn’t closing for the Rays in the series — David Price was.
Wheeler was actually better than Percival in save situations last year, and he ended up with 13 saves:
Percival, SaveSit2008: 34.1 IP, 5.50 ERA, 30/22 K/BB ratio.
Wheeler, SaveSit2008: 43 IP, 3.14 ERA, 35/14 K/BB ratio.
The two best pitchers in the Rays pen last year were J.P. Howell and Grant Balfour (who has numbers similar to what Motte’s look like, redbirdnation8206 compared the two this offseason in a post here.), so why weren’t they closing? Because Maddon liked to use them in the middle innings in tight situations because they didn’t walk many guys and got a ton of punch-outs. Here’s some other interesting numbers to look at in terms of high leverage situations:
Percival (HiLev2008): .200/.326/.507 .833 OPS against in 93 PA’s
Wheeler (HiLev2008): .193/.258/.403 .661 OPS against in 132 PA’s
Howell (HiLev2008): .121/.256/.141 .398 OPS against in 121 PA’s
Balfour (HiLev2008): .148/.235/.164 .399 OPS against in 69 PA’s
Howell and Balfour were the best in high leverage situations and the “closer”, Percival, was the worst. The Rays would have been better off with Wheeler closing and Howell and Balfour throwing in innings 6-8 with Miller being used exclusively for lefties…….
…..or they could just leave the bullpen alone and stick David Price in as the closer, which is what they ended up doing in the post-season. He was nails down the stretch:
Price (ReliefStats2008): .161/.212/.290 .502 OPS against in 33 PA’s.
Wheeler didn’t fare well in the postseson, but Balfour and Price were instrumental in getting them through the ALCS (especially Price).
The Rays used Wheeler and Percival in the closer’s role so that they could use Balfour and Howell during the middle innings to put out fires. This strategy worked well for them all of last season and into the postseason, even though Howell and Balfour were their two best relievers last year.
So, as I was saying, I think Motte belongs in the middle innings, with someone like Perez, Kinney, or K-Mac closing. You can have a “closer” if you want, I guess, but it doesn’t have to Motte because he’s the best pitcher back there, as the Rays proved last year. It doesn’t have to be closer-by-committee, but you also don’t have to put your best arm in the closer’s role either — you can effectively use them better in the middle innings.
"I just wish that the late Harry Caray were still around so I could hear him mispronounce 'Kosuke Fukudome' every fukun' night" -- Dennis Miller
by fourstick on Mar 17, 2009 11:41 AM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
The data does not back you up
While Howell and Balfour were indeed the best pitchers on that staff, they were not used in the highest leverage situations overall. Courtesy of Fangraphs, here are the pLI’s (leverage index) of the releivers that you mentioned.
1.80 Percival
1.72 Wheeler
1.26 Balfour
1.26 Howell
So as you can see, pitchers who come “during the middle innings to put out fires” don’t pitch in as many high leverage situations as 9th inning guys.
vivaelbeñsheets
by vivaelpujols on Mar 17, 2009 1:22 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Where in my comment did I say they pitched the MOST high leverage situations?
I said they were used in high leverage situations in the middle innings, and 1.26 is still fairly high for a middle reliever. For Pete’s sake, you can tell they didn’t pitch in as many based on the PA’s that I referenced in the leverage stats.
Regardless, it doesn’t really refute my argument at all, which is to say that your best relievers may be better suited to situations in the middle of the game rather than situations later in the game, especially if they are strikeout pitchers that don’t walk very many people and aren’t suited to pitch multiple innings. You know, guys like Motte and Balfour.
Wheeler pitched in near as many high leverage situations as Percival and did a better job, so he should have been their closer, while Balfour and Howell pitch in the middle innings to put out fires, sometimes before they begin.
"I just wish that the late Harry Caray were still around so I could hear him mispronounce 'Kosuke Fukudome' every fukun' night" -- Dennis Miller
by fourstick on Mar 17, 2009 3:13 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
umm...
Regardless, it doesn’t really refute my argument at all, which is to say that your best relievers may be better suited to situations in the middle of the game rather than situations later in the game
Yes it does. Closers, simply because they pitch in the 9th inning, have a higher leverage index than setup man. If you want to have a bullpen ace, a pitcher who always pitches in the highest leverage situations of the game, than that is fine. But if you go with the closer model, than your closer will have more high leverage situations, thus it should be the best reliever.
vivaelbeñsheets
by vivaelpujols on Mar 17, 2009 3:34 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
NO. It doesn't.
I’m arguing against the “closer model”. So the fact that Percival threw in more higher leverage situations doesn’t really apply — just because Maddon threw him in the 9th all the time and he happened to have a ton of high leverage situations in the ninth inning doesn’t refute my argument that you should throw your best reliever at the first high leverage situation you encounter in the game that fits situationally. You shouldn’t just save him for the ninth and hope to have the lead at that time, just because you might have a high leverage situation at that time too. You’re basically arguing managerial usage and not managerial strategy: I don’t give a crap if Percival pitched in more higher leverage situations than Balfour, that just means that the manager put him in those situations. I would have Balfour throwing like a true “fireman” and having him come in whenever I needed a big out or two or are going to face the other teams 3-4 best hitters.
"I just wish that the late Harry Caray were still around so I could hear him mispronounce 'Kosuke Fukudome' every fukun' night" -- Dennis Miller
by fourstick on Mar 17, 2009 4:10 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Okay
I agree with your argument. I am all in favor of a bullpen ace, the go to guy, who you always put in the highest expected leverage situations of the game. If that is your stance (which admittedly I didn’t grasp at first) than we are in agreement.
However, if the closer model is in place, you would go with the best reliever as the closer. Right?
vivaelbeñsheets
by vivaelpujols on Mar 17, 2009 7:59 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
To be honest, it depends on the situation and the other guys I have available.
In the Cardinals situation, I think there are a couple of guys, Perez and Kinney and to a lesser extent Franklin, who are better at coming in at the beginning of an inning and working through hitters with nobody on than they are at coming in with runners on, simply because they are prone to having control issues, and those situation dictate that you can’t give away a free baserunner. Motte is capable of getting a lot of K’s without giving up a lot of walks (which is really extremely rare when you think about it), making him the perfect guy to come in with runners on and less than 2 out, where a couple of strikeouts could prevent runners from scoring. Same with Balfour for the Rays — he’s the perfect guy to come in and get 1 or 2 big strikeouts for you in a situation where he inherits runs. I don’t like Kinney or Perez in these situations because they are prone to control issues and a walk or two in this situation could, and most likely would, lead to a huge inning for the opposition.
I think Motte would make a terrific closer, I do, I just think that given the rest of the hand that we are dealt on the 2009 Cardinals he is best serving the team in the middle innings in high leverage situations.
Also, let me point out that I would be much more likely to let a starter start the 7th inning at 100 pitches if I knew that I had a guy who could come in with a runner on second and strike out the side without putting another runner on. I think this leads to more innings for the starters and more confident starting staff, which lessens the leverage and innings needed from your bullpen.
"I just wish that the late Harry Caray were still around so I could hear him mispronounce 'Kosuke Fukudome' every fukun' night" -- Dennis Miller
by fourstick on Mar 18, 2009 12:36 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
you don't want to use pLI
pLI is the average of all the leverage indexes a pitcher faces in a game, so it goes down if a pitcher pitches well in high leverage situations, and vice versa.
To measure what you’re trying to measure here, you want to use gmLI, which is defined as “A pitcher’s average LI when he enters the game. Its use is mostly to show a manager perspective, as it indicates the level of fire that the manager wanted his reliever to face.” -tango
By gmLI, percival was used in the 4th-highest average leverage situations in the rays pen last year. That is, situations that didn’t become high leverage because of his pitching ;)
Player gmLI Wheeler 1.74 Balfour 1.69 Bradford 1.58 Percival 1.47 Howell 1.36
"i have a feeling the answers are bigger than the questions" -Dr Heyward Floyd
by SleepyCA on Mar 18, 2009 4:58 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Look, all I said was that Wheeler was worse than Paplebon and Lidge in the postseason and that hurt them
I didn’t say that that was the definitive reason that the Rays lost the WS. Philly had won all 4 of their WS games before it even got to a battle of the bullpens.
TBs bullpen down the stretch last year was a bullpen in transition from Percival to Price/Balfour with Wheeler being used to bridge the gap. The Rays started 2008 expecting Percival to close the entire year but when he went down they were screwed. It wasn’t their intent to do a closer-by-comittee down the stretch. Wheeler didn’t implode as a bridge to the closer of the future but they couldn’t sustain that bullpen model for very long. Eventually one reliver will have to step up as the reliable, long term closer. The Rays were hoping David Price would take the reins for them in the WS but Philly dominated too strongly for Price to get a chance.
I think a closer by committee model can be used for short periods of time to sort out the bullpen but a constant, strong, reliable presence must be installed as closer for the long haul. For people who like a “mediocre” closer with relief aces in the 7/8th innings, just look at what happened last year when Izzy and Franklin went out to close games with KMAC/Springer/Perez pitching in setup. The setup guys would more often than not come in and hold the lead into the 9th just to have Izzy or Franklyn blow the save.
by Czechguardsman on Mar 18, 2009 2:25 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I'm not sure about fourstick
but my definition of a relief ace is the guy who you put in the expected highest leverage situations of the game. That is usually the 9th inning, however, if you identify a situation in one of the earlier innings that expect is a higher leverage situation than you think the 9th will be, than he should pitch then.
vivaelbeñsheets
by vivaelpujols on Mar 18, 2009 4:17 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
And what you keep failing to understand
is that Wheeler was actually better than Percival last season, which is what my stats above pointed out. Hence, they were actually better off with him closing down the stretch. Yes, he wasn’t great in the postseason last year and ended up getting replaced with Price, but they still were able to reach the World Series with this model. Moreover, neither Wheeler nor Percival were better than Balfour or Howell, so that kinda shoots down your theory that every team uses it’s best reliever in the “closer’s” role.
You seem to think that a team has to have a person in the “closer” role to have an effective bullpen, and what mattyfrommo and I have been pointing out is that there are cases where multiple guys have filled that role over the season and that those teams have been successful enough to be able to make the postseason with that model.
As vivaelpujols says above, I’m a big believer in the bullpen ace model in most situations, but especially when you have a guy like Motte that has an extremely high strikeout to walk ratio. Think about this: everyone talks about how hard it is to hit Marmol, but Motte has actually been harder to hit and he walked 1/5 as many guys as Marmol in the same number of innings over the last two seasons.
"I just wish that the late Harry Caray were still around so I could hear him mispronounce 'Kosuke Fukudome' every fukun' night" -- Dennis Miller
by fourstick on Mar 18, 2009 8:50 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
"Wheeler was clearly not as good as Paplebon or Lidge in last year’s postseason and it cost the Rays. "
Oh yeah, Dan Wheeler is the reason the Rays lost in the WS, not the Pena/Longoria slumps. Thanks, I had almost forgotten.
by R.J. Anderson on Mar 17, 2009 1:21 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
It's better than giving Jason Bartlett and MVP vote
vivaelbeñsheets
by vivaelpujols on Mar 17, 2009 4:07 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
This is another false choice.
I used to agree with that sentiment, but Sky Kalkman proved me wrong. Closers are alway used in higher leverage situation then then setup man, or "strikout specialists".
So because Sky proved that, in the past, managers use their closers in higher leverage situations than their setup men, that proves that it is the best way to do it? I disagree: just because there is “conventional wisdom” that can be shown by the actions of managers in the past, that doesn’t mean that it’s the best way to handle that situation, it’s simply the way it’s been done most often. Would you jump off a bridge if everyone else was doing it too? That’s essentially the argument that Sky made: “See, closers DO pitch in more higher leverage situations.”
Sure, the “closer” is going to get more high leverage situations because he’s usually the best reliever on the team and conventional wisdom says that you should use the best reliever you have as your closer. But what happens when conventional wisdom is wrong for a particular situation? Conventional wisdom says that we should bat our best hitter 3rd or 4th when statistics show he should bat second; conventional wisdom shows that teams should bat the pitcher 9th because he’s the worst hitter in the lineup, when analysis shows that he should be batting 8th because a team scores more runs that way. Just because everyone else is doing doesn’t make it the right thing to do — look at our current stock market and mortgage situation!
"I just wish that the late Harry Caray were still around so I could hear him mispronounce 'Kosuke Fukudome' every fukun' night" -- Dennis Miller
by fourstick on Mar 17, 2009 10:47 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I agree with you
A bullpen “ace” is the right way to go. Meaning a guy, who you always put in the highest leverage situation of the game, whether it be in the 7th or the 9th. However, I doubt that Tony would do that. Most managers go with a closer, a setup man, etc., in a direct pecking order. Tony especially, who showed such an over reliance on Izzy, even when he struggled, most likely wouldn’t break conventional wisdom.
If he does go with a predetermined 9th inning closer, then it should be Motte. If he goes with a bullpen ace, then it should still be Motte. Either way, he would see the highest leverage situations of any pitcher in the pen.
vivaelbeñsheets
by vivaelpujols on Mar 17, 2009 1:13 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I think we agree...
but the OP asked who we would pick to be the closer, not how Tony would do it, that’s an entirely different question, because I would manage a bullpen differently than TLR.
I would use Motte as the bullpen ace, and throw him whenever I needed a strikeout in a big spot, or start him in the 8th inning and let him finish the ninth if needed. If he pitches in the 7th, I’m fine with any of those other pitchers throwing in the ninth and picking up the save — it’s a meaningless stat anyway.
"I just wish that the late Harry Caray were still around so I could hear him mispronounce 'Kosuke Fukudome' every fukun' night" -- Dennis Miller
by fourstick on Mar 17, 2009 3:17 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
that's why I voted for Perez
plus he’s a closer already
by Cards Fan in Chitown on Mar 17, 2009 3:23 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Did you see what I saw?
2 games, in a row, lost in the bottom of the ninth by two different closers? Hell, I sure hope this doesn’t foreshadow our 09 season… Oh and btw, I like the closer by committee closer situation until one guy stands out. Then, make that guy our closer.
Yadi swings and hits a high fly ball... Endy Chavez goes back, to the track, to the wall... ITS A GUNNER!! Yadi gives St. Louis the lead in the top of the ninth!
by Paulspike on Mar 16, 2009 5:34 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
I don't think you have to worry about it foreshawdowing 09
Todd and Salas aren’t very like to see many chances in Cards bullpen this season.
* sarcasm might be involved in this comment
and....BEN SHEETS!!! **
**not that BEN SHEETS might be involved in this comment, just BEN SHEETS!!!
(BEN SHEETS might be involved in this comment)
by mattyfrommo on Mar 16, 2009 7:46 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
then again I might be wrong
Are both expected to open in AAA? I think I am getting Salas confused with someone
* sarcasm might be involved in this comment
and....BEN SHEETS!!! **
**not that BEN SHEETS might be involved in this comment, just BEN SHEETS!!!
(BEN SHEETS might be involved in this comment)
by mattyfrommo on Mar 16, 2009 7:50 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Todd is definitely starting in AAA.
Not sure about Salas though. He is a relatively highly regarded prospect, so it is probable
Yadi swings and hits a high fly ball... Endy Chavez goes back, to the track, to the wall... ITS A GUNNER!! Yadi gives St. Louis the lead in the top of the ninth!
by Paulspike on Mar 16, 2009 11:10 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2009 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.
