[Previous entry: "Japanese Baseball News: Mori Asks to be Posted; Wada Hammered in Debut"] [Main Index] [Next entry: "Taiwan Baseball News: Games Postponed"]
04/04/2003 Archived Entry: "Today's MLB News: Closer by Committee?"
Today's MLB News by Eric Gartman
Today's MLB News: Closer by Committee?-Although it failed miserably in their first game of the season, the Boston Red Sox, under new GM Theo Epstein, and under the influence of stats guru Bill James, have decided to abandon the orthodox closer for the season, replacing it with a "closer by committee." The theory behind this move is that closers are generally overrated and overpaid, and the job can just as easily be done by several relievers. There is much truth to this idea. Consider the following pitchers who have logged impressive save totals in recent years: Esteban Yan, Antonio Alfonseca, Hideki Irabu, Ugueth Urbina, John Rocker, Mark Wohlers (!). Would you want any of these guys on your team? Then why should they be paid considerably more than middle relievers, whose numbers are identical, except for in the save column? Furthermore, there is the matter of how the closer is used. Closers are often brought in during the ninth inning with a three-run lead to pitch against the bottom of the order, just so they can boost their save total. Wouldn't it be smarter to bring in your best guy in a tight game in the seventh inning even if he won't get the save? That's the basic idea behind Bill James argument. He claims that the best use of a great relieve is when the game is tied or when his team is ahead by one run. He's not alone either. Andrew Torrez has said much the same in his book "Off Base," and Whitey Herzog argued that closers should pitch the last two innings. There is a catch, though. In the playoffs, where the late innings are much tougher going, you really do want to have a superstar in the ninth inning, a guy like Mariano Rivera who can come in and shut the other team down. But if you don't have a guy like Rivera on the roster, do you really want an Ugueth Urbina to turn the ball over to in the ninth just so he can boost his save (and salary) total? Absent a stud reliever, I believe the closer by committee is the best way to go. And though it didn't work in their first game, the Red Sox refused to abandon it. It worked in their second game, however, and I suspect it will just as well as having Urbina close. Until the playoffs, that is. If the Red Sox make it that far, they will need a relief ace. But even then, they may use him differently.
Replies: 1 Comment
Consider me a full supporter of the Red Sox approach to challenging sacred baseball myths. James would argue this isn't closer by committee at all it's simply using your best pitcher when you need them most. Anyone who has played Strat-o-matic, APBA, Diamond Mind etc knows how arbitrary closers are and don't use real life closers as closers-they use the pitcher that gives them best chance to get the out.
The sabermetric invasion of traditional baseball has reached a zenith and traditional baseball beat writers (some of which are incredibly ignorant about baseball) are united in praying for the Red Sox experiment to fail. Bottom line- the Sox are looking just fine after 3 games and remain my pick to win the AL.
Especially in this year where it seems every team closer is injured or talent questionable- the Bo Sox seem to be acknowledging the obvious that most teams won't acknowledge- Braden Looper or Billy Koch anyone? I missed the opinion pieces on the collapse of the traditional closer when the Royals blew Koch a part but Lord help us if Chad Fox blows one.
The Red Sox are one of the most important stories of the last 10 years and beat writers are scared because they may have to get out of the buffet line and work for a living again.
Posted by Bart Ewing @ 04/04/2003 03:55 PM EST
