The flaws in the closer model are starting to show (MLB Bullpens)

[nickgutierrez]

Background: Since Tony LaRussa's Oakland A's in the 1980's (correct me if I'm wrong on this), at least, teams have used an incredibly predictable and utterly useless scheme of bullpen management where they save their best pitchers for the last inning of games in which they are leading by three runs or less. The purpose of this usage, as far as I can see, is to maximize the total of a particularly useless stat known as the "save", or because the magical and unquestionable Book says so. Either way, it has some problems.

We're starting to see the crack in the closer model, and it comes in the form of one of the most unhittable machines the league has ever seen. For years, Mariano Rivera had the reputation as a machine, an absolute lock with the game on the line for the New York Yankees and the Evil Empire of the late '90s and early 2000s. But now, after seeing him for something like 1,000,000 innings over the past three seasons, the Boston Red Sox have, apparently, started to figure him out.

Rivera has blown four of his last five saves vs. the Yankees' hated rivals. Part of this is that Rivera is a one-pitch pitcher. All he does is throw that cut fastball, in towards a rightie and away from lefties. It works. As I said, the man was a machine from about 1996 to this very day. But when a team of good hitters gets enough looks at a one-pitch pitcher, no matter how good that one pitch might be, they start to hit that pitch.

The other problem, and the one that nobody seems willing to touch, is his usage. If a team has a reliever's number, as the Sox seem to have Rivera's number, you STOP USING THAT PITCHER in key situations against that team. The Yankees have capable relievers. Tom Gordon, Steve Karsay, Paul Quantrill, and Felix Rodriguez are all very good pitchers, even if they have seen better days, and Joe Torre's refusal to use either of them beyond the 8th inning shows a level of myopia that isn't helping anybody.

In the first of the two games, the Yankees had a one run lead going into the 8th inning, and they brought in their designated Eighth Inning Guy, Tom Gordon. Gordon pitches a perfect 8th inning. A series of questions leaps to mind:

1. If this were the 7th inning, would he not be sent out for the 8th without a second thought?

2. Putting aside the closer model for a second, what is really so different about the 9th inning that renders a guy who just pitched a perfect inning incapable of finishing?

3. More generally, is there any real reason to change from a guy whose first inning was perfect to another reliever?

4. In light of these questions, why the hell would you pull Tom Gordon for the 9th inning?

This isn't all about the Sox "owning" Rivera. This is about an inefficient, myopic, and just plain ineffective way of running a bullpen. When a manager is so ready to use lefty-righty strategies in the 6th, 7th, 8th innings, why is it that the presence of a guy that has the shiny label of "closer" suddenly overrules these concerns?

If your team has a robot for a set-up man, as Rivera was in the late '90s before the departure of then-closer John Wetteland, as Guillermo Mota was for the Dodgers the past couple of seasons before being traded to the Florida Marlins, what's the risk in letting that guy go an extra inning now and then?

If your closer is one of the most effective pitchers in the game, as Eric Gagne is now for the Dodgers, why do you use him with a three-run lead in the 9th inning, but not in the 9th inning of a tie game? For that matter, why not the 8th inning with a one-run lead? Or, to take it to the extreme, the 7th or 8th of a tie game? If the man's job is to help your team win close games, why not put him in when the game is at its closest?

When The Book stops working, it becomes time to write a new chapter. Joe Torre needs to be the man to step up and write this new chapter, but he probably won't do it. Who will it be?

[MessiahRp]

1. As a Sox fan

trust me the Closer's model is the correct one.

Closer by comittee = 2003 failure.

Keith Foulke = 2004 World Series Champions.

Look we're THREE games into the season and some pitchers who didn't face a lot of major league competition in the spring are a bit off the mark. Big fricken deal. Talk about jumping the gun.

Rp

[nickgutierrez]

2. I'm not suggesting "Closer by Committee"

There can still be "The Guy", I'm just suggesting that you use "The Guy" in a more effective way. And that means getting away from the closer model.

[carnie_sf]

3. Also, the Red Sox

to a man refuse to say they have Rivera "figured out", much less that they own him. I think what you're seeing is a team of very good hitters having some luck against one of the premier pitchers in baseball.

[JackRiddler]

5. Combo

No team is ever going to say out loud that they think they own a guy - that motivates the other side and could jinx'em.

Rivera's 35 and he's pitched in like 70 games a season for years and 59 postseason games. I figure he's not quite where he was AND the Red Sox have seen enough of him to figure him out. (Especially since the focus is so completely on the confrontation with the Yankees.)

[northzax]

13. not quite true,

didn't the yankees admit to being Pedro's daddy last year? that worked out, didn't it? (I wasn't really paying attention...)

[nickgutierrez]

14. The exact opposite

Pedro joked that the Yankees are his daddy.

At least, I think it was a joke - it was pretty funny, the way he said it.

[northzax]

17. yes, but the yankees didn't exactly downplay it, did they?

[JackRiddler]

22. The Yankees made nothing of it...

and would have been stupid to do so.

Yankee FANS certainly did NOT downplay it, but still it did them no good.

[nickgutierrez]

15. This may very well end up being the truth

Keep in mind that all of the last four blown saves were all one-run leads, and one of them came with Mo coming in with runners on first and third with no outs - a run is practically guaranteed, and he did well to get through the inning with just the one run.

[JackRiddler]

4. I've been thinking this for years...

Good points.

Then again, I'm nostalgic for the days when starters were actually allowed to pitch complete games, at least given a chance to get out of trouble as late as the 7th inning. (Though it's usually easy enough to tell when a starter has run out of gas, so the decision to replace the starter is usually a wise one.)

With the rising significance of relief pitching in the 70s and 80s you didn't have closers - you had "firemen" who would come in when there was trouble and pitch for as long as they were good. A save usually meant 2 or 3 innings pitched, and the premiere relievers would astonish by racking up 30 saves in a season, which is nowadays routine with the typical save being a one-inning performance by the "closer."

A lot of games go lost for managers who outsmart themselves with too many pitching changes. I think a lot more games are lost this way than because of sticking with a guy too long, but it's the latter type of loss that is more memorable to people. (Let's get the Elias Sports Bureau to do an analysis!)

Why bring in a lefthander to face the righy when your righty on the mound is already hot? It seems to me every pitching change risks bringing in a guy who's might prove unready. If the guy on the mound is getting the outs...

I've always thought the long-relief model makes more sense and since playing models (fashions?) do shift back and forth over the years, you may see teams returning to it. It's all up to who you actually have as talent, of course.

The closer and specialists for 6th, 7th or 8th inning relief may be symptomatic in athletics of a super-specialized mentality within the economy and culture as a whole.

(Don't you like how everyone already has their mental tickets for another Red Sox/Yankees rematch? You think this is motivating the rest of the American League to actually go out there and kick some ass? But never mind, I'm from New York, therefore...)

Subway Series it is!

And, ahem... that's MISTER Evil Empire to you, bub!

[nickgutierrez]

7. I thought we'd see some teams switch back after the 2003 playoffs

Jack McKeon did an outstanding job of managing his bullpen that year - his closer pitched more than one inning when necessary, relievers in general went longer, he didn't fiddle around with lefty-righty so much, and the team won the World Series. I'm not suggesting that teams start using their starters out of the pen, but dammit, The Book for 1990-2005 baseball needs to be burned, and have its ashes blown out of a bazooka.

[rinsd]

18. "pitched more than one inning when necessary"

Sort of....

In 2003, Branden Looper was the closer until they traded for Urbina. He threw 80.2 innings in 74 appearances. That's a shade under 1.1 innings per appearance.

Urbina threw 38.1 innings in 33 appearances. That's a shade over 1.1 innings per appearance.

McKeon to his credit did use Urbina in an extended role during the playoffs.

Mariano Rivera over the course of his career since he became the closer has about the same average as Branden Looper did a shade under 1.1.

Blame LaRussa for putting this mentality on "1 inning only if you're winning" pitchers because it isn't Joe and it isn't Mo who do this.

[rinsd]

19. That's why Goose should be in the HOF...

...he came up short this year but I think he'll make it. I expect the building of a new Rollie Fingers wing that will have to be built when players of this era retire.

[DaveinMD]

21. starters pitch less

because they do tire earlier. Pitch counts preserve their careers. Pitchers who are overworked lose their stuff quicker. Javy Vazquez is exhibit A for this. Prior and Wood was also overworked and have had major arm problems.

[Old and In the Way]

6. Good points....I also don't understand pulling a pitcher to

get the "save" pitcher in for the 9th. Never made much sense to me.

[rinsd]

8. Mariano is the greatest reliver EVER!

That said, he's 35 years old. How many pitchers are devastating at that age in any capacity?

Also Mo didn't start throwing the cutter until 1998. Before that he threw a 2 seam and a 4 seam rising fastball. He was nothing but cutter for about 3 years but in the last 2 years he has started to mix in the 2 seam and 4 seam again. He doesn't have an off speed pitch.

And as far as Torre goes, he ignores the LaRussa model when it counts the most....the post season.

Mariano's record in the postseason is

W L ERA G SV IP
8 1 0.75 70 32 108.2

That's a little under 1.6 innings per appearance.

[JackRiddler]

10. 0.75 ERA?!

Wow, he IS God.

[rinsd]

11. Now we just have to wait for the "resurrection" (nt)

[JackRiddler]

12. You'll see a whole season's worth...

Mo's fine, he's got a couple of seasons in him yet.

[rinsd]

16. Not too worried....

...after all its only April. One only needs to look at Jeter's April last year with all the same crap that he's done etc. But at least he had a whole month to stink up the joint before the vultures got circling.

I will never forget 1999 when Mo didn't give up a run(any run) from July 15th till then end of the season and in the 4th game of the Series sweep of the Brave's he broke Klesko's bat....3 times!

[hijinx87]

9. for years, I considered the notion of a closer to be . .

a waste of a roster spot. baseball has no place for that kind of specialization; I held "closer" in the same contempt as "designated hitter", and for the same reasons. you waste a whole roster spot on a guy that probably pitches one inning two or three times a week? bullcrap.

and then, someone like eric gagne comes along, and just blows that notion away. so, my revised thinking on closers: "The 'Closer' is a waste of a roster spot, unless you have a gagne or (perhaps) a rivera in that spot, in which case it begins to make some sense."

[DaveinMD]

20. this Rivera sucking notion

is way overblown.

1. He doesn't only throw a cutter. That's his dominant pitch. He also throws a two seam fastball and a four seam fastball.

2. He gave up one run to the Sox in the postseason last year. That's right 1. He almost singlehandedly beat them the year before.

3. If A-Rod makes the play, the second blown save doesn't happen.

4. He missed a ton of time this spring with bursitis. That is likely the cause of his problems. He'll be fine when it matters most.

[PDittie]

23. The best closers have a few good years

and then they're done. Those years they dominate stand out.

Rivera and and a few others (Wagner, Percival, Hoffman) may be approaching obsolescence after a handful of seasons at a high level of effectiveness, and sometimes dominance, in their craft.

A few others (Nathan, Lidge, F. Rodriguez) appear to be approaching the zenith of their careers as closers.

Some might be good or not, depending on their last outing (Dotel, Graves).

Another group of older players without the same track record of dominance but were still pretty good for awhile (Benitez, Mesa) hang on to their jobs based more on past reputation than future performance, while another bunch who had glory once now just hang on to a job (John Franco, Alfonseca, Howry, Bottalico, Mantei).

Closer-by-committee -- known as platoon at every other position -- has no confidence as a managerial strategy.

What's the point?

A good closer makes a genius out of a manager. A bad one gets him fired.

I don't know if the model needs to be revised, but a bullpen as deep as the Yankees' could be utilized pretty effectively this season if Rivera continues to falter.

[DaveinMD]

24. Rivera

had one of his best season last year and gave up one run in the postseason. He didn't throw much this spring. He'll be fine as he rounds into shape.